Practical Stoicism

I am a public philosopher, it is my only job. I am enabled to do this job, in large part, thanks to support from my listeners and readers. You can support my work, keep it independent and online, at https://stoicismpod.com/members

Looking for more Stoic content? Consider my 3x/week newsletter "Stoic Brekkie": https://stoicbrekkie.com

In this episode, I take up a question that seems settled, orthodox, and uncontroversial: can indifferents be preferred or dispreferred? Most Stoics would say yes and move on. But there is a serious ancient challenge to that position, and understanding it matters more than most people realize.

I begin with the standard Stoic account, drawing on Zeno as recorded by Stobaeus and Cicero. Virtue alone is good, vice alone is bad, and everything else is indifferent. Still, some indifferents are naturally preferred or rejected because they align with our rational nature. Health, social cooperation, and material sufficiency are not goods, but they are “according to nature.”

I then introduce the provocateur: Ariston of Chios. Ariston rejects the very idea of preferred and dispreferred indifferents. In his view, calling something a preferred indifferent is just calling it a good under another name. For Ariston, everything between virtue and vice is radically neutral, and any preference only arises situationally, never because the thing itself has standing within nature.

I explain why this disagreement is not merely semantic. Ariston’s position is inseparable from his rejection of Stoic physics and logic. Once those are removed, there is no rational structure of nature to ground stable preferences. Ethics collapses into a stark minimalism where virtue alone matters and everything else is interchangeable depending on circumstance.

This is why later Stoics saw Ariston as a dead end rather than a reformer. Without physics and logic, Stoic ethics loses its ability to guide action across time, roles, and recurring human situations. The philosophy becomes thinner, not sharper.

Finally, I connect this ancient dispute to a modern problem. Contemporary Stoicism often tries to keep the ethics while quietly discarding the physics and logic as unnecessary or outdated. That move repeats Ariston’s mistake. Stoicism can evolve, but it cannot survive if its foundations are simply removed without replacement. You cannot pull the columns out from under the Stoa and expect the roof to hold.

If we want Stoicism to remain coherent, actionable, and philosophically serious, we need to understand why preferred indifferents exist and what architectural commitments make them possible in the first place.

Listening on Spotify? Leave a comment! Share your thoughts.

Podcast artwork by Original Randy: https://www.originalrandy.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I am a public philosopher, it is my only job. I am enabled to do this job, in large part, thanks to support from my listeners and readers. You can support my work, keep it independent and online, at https://stoicismpod.com/members

Looking for more Stoic content? Consider my 3x/week newsletter "Stoic Brekkie": https://stoicbrekkie.com

Musonius Rufus Discourse 12: https://archive.org/details/MUSONIUSRUFUSSTOICFRAGMENTS

In this episode, I respond to a candid listener email asking about the Stoic position on sex work. The question is not framed with hostility or judgment, and for that reason I take it seriously. This is not an episode condemning women, sex workers, or anyone’s personal choices. It is an attempt to think clearly and Stoically about consent, justice, harm, and choice.

I begin by clarifying what the listener is actually asking. He is not asking whether men are wrong to engage sex workers, but whether women selling sex is unjust from a Stoic perspective. That distinction matters. Stoicism is not interested in purity rules or guilt. It is interested in whether actions are chosen rationally, freely, and without injustice.

I then address my own bias. I do not like sex work as a practice, largely because I am skeptical that it is ever entirely free from coercion, manipulation, or long-term harm. I make that bias explicit so it can be accounted for rather than hidden. A Stoic answer requires setting personal discomfort aside and asking whether something is unjust, not whether it feels distasteful.

To explore the classical position, I turn to Musonius Rufus and his extremely restrictive views on sex. Musonius argues that sex is only justified within marriage and only for procreation. I explain why I find this position impractical, overly rigid, and inconsistent with the rest of Stoic ethics. Stoicism is about rational choice, not outcome fixation, and reducing sex to reproduction ignores human health, intimacy, and context.

From there, I outline what Stoicism actually cares about. Sex is unjust only when it involves harm, coercion, deception, addiction, or unfair leverage. If a sex worker is freely choosing her work, has the power to refuse clients, is not being forced by circumstance or threat, and if the client is acting honestly and without deception, then no injustice is clearly present. In that case, there is no Stoic violation simply because money is exchanged.

I also stress that moral clarity does not end with permissibility. Just because something is not unjust does not mean it is automatically wise, healthy, or worth repeating. Stoicism asks us to remain attentive to who we are becoming through our choices. Avoiding injustice does not excuse us from remaining pro-social, reflective, and responsible for our future character.

I conclude by emphasizing that Stoicism offers very little in the way of sexual rules, but a great deal in the way of ethical reasoning. The question is not whether sex work is “unstoic” in the abstract. The question is always whether a choice is rational, just, non-harmful, and aligned with the kind of person we are trying to become.

Listening on Spotify? Leave a comment! Share your thoughts.

Podcast artwork by Original Randy: https://www.originalrandy.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Interested in the Vinyl? Fill out this form please! https://stoicismpod.com/vinyl

50% off the journaling program us the code 5YEARS50 at checkout: https://stoicjournaling.com

50% off the daily practice app, use this link: https://studio.com/tanner/stoicism?c=Wu7tsqpP
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I am a public philosopher, it is my only job. I am enabled to do this job, in large part, thanks to support from my listeners and readers. You can support my work, keep it independent and online, at https://stoicismpod.com/members

Looking for more Stoic content? Consider my 3x/week newsletter "Stoic Brekkie": https://stoicbrekkie.com

The Iris Council: https://iriscouncil.com

In this episode, I focus on the Stoic virtue of Justice and why it matters so urgently right now. Justice, in Stoicism, is not about legality or compliance with the law. It is about fairness. When we confuse what is legal with what is just, we risk excusing serious wrongdoing simply because it has been ratified by those in power.

I explain why laws themselves can be unjust, especially when they are created or enforced by leaders who are not acting as protectors and benefactors of their people. If a law is out of alignment with what is fair, then the injustice lies with the law, not with those who recognize its unfairness. This is where Stoicism demands courage rather than passive acceptance.

To ground this discussion, I turn to Musonius Rufus and his lecture On That Kings Too Should Practice Philosophy. Musonius argues that rulers must study philosophy because only philosophy teaches justice, self-control, courage, and rational judgment. A good king must be a good person, and a good person, by necessity, is a philosopher. Leadership without moral wisdom is not merely flawed; it is dangerous.

I then broaden the lens to our responsibility as Stoics. Stoicism is not withdrawal or indifference. It is rational engagement with the world. The Cardinal Virtues work together: courage enables just action, temperance guides when to act, justice clarifies what is fair, and wisdom grounds us in our role as social beings. Leaders who divide humanity into “our kind” and “not our kind” fail this test of justice, regardless of what the law permits.

Finally, I argue that our response to unjust leadership must itself be just. That requires self-examination. Before judging leaders, we must be capable of judging ourselves. A society that does not understand goodness cannot expect just leaders, and leaders drawn from such a society will reflect that confusion. What we need is not blind obedience or reckless outrage, but a serious moral recalibration rooted in Stoic philosophy.

Listening on Spotify? Leave a comment! Share your thoughts.

Podcast artwork by Original Randy: https://www.originalrandy.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I am a public philosopher, it is my only job. I am enabled to do this job, in large part, thanks to support from my listeners and readers. You can support my work, keep it independent and online, at https://stoicismpod.com/members

Looking for more Stoic content? Consider my 3x/week newsletter "Stoic Brekkie": https://stoicbrekkie.com

In this episode, I respond to a listener question prompted by the loss of a long-lived orchid. The plant did not die from neglect, but from care that was given in ignorance. What was meant to nurture it slowly caused harm. From that story comes a serious Stoic question: when does patience become self-abandonment? When does non-reactivity turn into tolerating conditions that prevent growth?

I address a common misunderstanding of Stoicism that treats emotional detachment as a virtue in itself. Stoicism does not teach that we should endure all conditions indefinitely, nor that thriving means being comfortable, happy, or externally successful. To thrive, in the Stoic sense, is to pursue moral excellence. Health, wealth, and calm are not the measure. Character is.

I make a distinction between the Stoic sage and the rest of us. A sage could flourish in any environment, but most of us are not sages. Environments shape the range of choices available to us. While our surroundings cannot force us to act viciously, they can limit what just and reasonable options are open to us. Poor environments narrow choice. Better environments expand it.

From that, I argue that changing your environment can be a Stoic obligation, not a failure of resilience. If a situation consistently restricts your ability to live out your roles well, whether as a parent, partner, or moral agent, then leaving or changing that environment may be the just choice, provided it is done without abandoning responsibilities or harming others.

Stoic endurance is not passive tolerance of harm. It is rational engagement with reality, including the reality that sometimes the right move is to change the soil, not blame the plant.

Listening on Spotify? Leave a comment! Share your thoughts.

Podcast artwork by Original Randy: https://www.originalrandy.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices