Stoicism for Me but Not for Thee

How to talk to irrational people

It’s easy to handle stress if you’re a Stoic. 

When you’re in the right headspace, insults, and setbacks are trivial.

After practicing the philosophy, you’ll see the payoff in the form of resilience. But some things still get to you.

Picture a plane delay. 

While waiting to board, you hear a tired and disembodied voice announce that the airline delayed the flight. You look into whether it’s worth getting on another. It isn’t. So it is. There is nothing else to do. You decide to use the break to get ahead on work, watch a movie you’ve put off for a while, and read Epictetus’s Handbook. It’s a long delay.

But no one else can handle it. Their travel-fatigued faces take on a dour disposition. That’s ok. Storms can surround you, but you will remain calm.

There’s something else though. Your travel partner can’t handle it. 

They cry out of frustration and exhaustion or react by silently sitting in a horrendous mood. Their attitude is so dour it manages to, in a miasmic way, seep into your mind-space and erode your calm.

So, you console them. You point out that there’s nothing to be done. It’s out of your control. 

And yet they’re still upset – what’s up with that? 

You’ve looked into workarounds. At this point, they should know that their attitude is mistaken. Delays are a risk of travel. Yet they’re still displeased. You hand them Epictetus’s Handbook. They’re not interested. 

You notice that you too are upset.

---

The Stoic response to people not being Stoic is to remain Stoic. That’s not the same as converting others to Stoicism. That approach doesn’t work.

Worse, it can warp our expectations. It can be frustrating to watch others, especially those you care about, succumb to adverse events. Exasperation is a natural response. But it’s not the Stoic one. 

Indeed, Epictetus advised his students to commiserate with other’s suffering:

When you see anyone weeping for grief, either that his son has gone abroad, or that he has suffered in his affairs, take care not to be overcome by the apparent evil; but discriminate, and be ready to say, “What hurts this man is not this occurrence itself,- for another man might not be hurt by it, – but the view he chooses to take of it.” As far as conversation goes, however, do not disdain to accommodate yourself to him, and if need be, to groan with him. Take heed, however, not to groan inwardly too.

Handbook 16

Seneca tells us to weep but not wail. Weeping is natural. Give others the same space.

One should be wary of pushing Stoicism on others or expecting them to behave rationally. 

We don’t live in a world where we’re surrounded by perfectly equanimous people. Wishing that we did is irrational. This is why Marcus Aurelius reminded himself:

Whenever a person’s lack of shame offends you, you should immediately ask yourself: “So is it possible for there to be no shameless people in the world?” It isn’t, and you should therefore stop demanding the impossible. He’s just one of those shameless people who must necessarily exist in the world.

Meditations 9.42

Anyway, we’re not sages. Why push that expectation onto others?

---

There’s a political lesson to this. The priest and philosopher Ivan Illich wrote the following:

I do not believe that countries need a national "health" policy, something given to their citizens. Rather, the latter need the courageous virtue to face certain truths:

• we will never eliminate pain;

• we will not cure all disorders;

• we will certainly die.

As an approach to life, Illich’s suggestion is better than a delusional obsession with “health.” Yet as a standard for government, it’s pernicious. 

If a country is telling its citizens to accept their plight, then it’s failing. Functioning institutions don’t blame the people they’re supposed to be taking care of. Similarly, a company cannot blame its failure on its users. When a founder holds his users responsible for his startup’s collapse he has forgotten what a startup is. The purpose of a startup is to serve its customers.

To be clear, Illich’s line isn’t completely off base, even in the political sphere. Modern medicine helps and harms. The cultural trend towards short-term comfort and permanent painkilling suggests vice. The bureaucratization of medicine has serious negative social consequences. There’s something to the line that the worst words in the English language are: “I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.”

However, these issues are distractions. Those suffering in front of you do not need to hear that we will never eliminate pain. They have needs that are not met by easily weaponized rhetoric.

---

So what should one do? 

We can console those who are suffering around us. Some just need us to acknowledge their pain and then they’ll bounce back. 

If we can fix the issue, we should. It’s better to remove the source of pain than change attitudes. If you can find another flight, do that – instead of complaining about others' reactions. Sometimes the Stoic response emerges as a result of lacking resourcefulness. It is often easier to treat someone's reaction to an obstacle – instead of the obstacle itself – as the problem. When you do this you’re like the founder blaming his customers for his company’s defeat. 

Telling – or even thinking – that others should be more Stoic focuses on the wrong person. 

An ancient Stoic paradox frames the issue well. The idea is that no wrong is worse than another. It’s wrong to steal one dollar and it’s wrong to defraud someone of their entire bank account. It’s simply wrong. There’s nothing to say about the intensity of either wrong. There's no such thing as more wrong or more right.

It’s an odd position. There were philosophical reasons for the ancient Stoics to say this. They focused on the Sage, the perfectly virtuous person, and falling short of sagehood was a failure. You either are virtuous or you aren’t. If you’re virtuous you’re a sage and if you’re not, well then you’re just wrong.

This is a philosophically dubious position, but it contains practical wisdom.

When we compare ourselves to those who are less Stoic than us, we’re forgetting that the correct model is the sage. When we tell others to be more Stoic, we come close to committing this mistake too. They don’t need to be more virtuous, we do.

Seeing the other person's reaction as the problem is a subtle version of treating other impediments we face as harms. Such things are indifferent. They are not up to us.

What’s up to us is playing the role of friend, partner, and excellent person as well as we can.

---

Many people would benefit from becoming Stoic. They do not usually get better after we tell them this. 

Whoever they are, should shape how we share the philosophy – or indeed whether we should share it at all. If we do decide to introduce Stoicism to them such a move must be made with care, not offered as a solution in a hectic airport or other stressful situation.

Hence, as a general rule, we should hold tight to the following: 

Stoicism for me but not for thee.