A Guided Exploration of Stoicism, Part 3 - control
A Guided Exploration of Stoicism, Part 3 - control
A collaboration With A Stoic for Any Season
The following is the third broadcast stemming from a collaboration between Kunga’s Written Radio and Frank Ó'hÁinle from A Stoic for Any Season (the first part can be found here, the second here . I heavily recommend checking out his work (which can be found here, I have also recommended his page so it is easier to find),hopefully it serves to be as insightful for you as it is for me.
KWR: What has stood out to me is this idea of ‘control’ which deserves a deeper dive. I believe that control can be incredibly subjective, and is more accurately visualized as a spectrum rather than a binary switch. This leads to the natural progression to the question of what defines an event or outcome as ‘controllable’. Could one not say that the lotus of control could lead to some missed opportunities, where things seen as out of control from the outside are never initiated, when in fact the problem could be fixed or target reached if it was earnestly attempted. At the micro-level in the short term it may be easier to disseminate what is and what isn’t explicitly controllable. But zooming out or drawing out any goals, actions or targets invariably results in more and more factors having an influence, and one’s control over these goals slips away.
From my understanding, a practitioner of stoicism, when looking to accomplish a long-term goal, one would focus on the things that they can control, which would contribute to the attainment of said goal. But with the aforementioned third-party external factors that can sway the outcome of this effort, one’s efforts may not necessarily lead to accomplishing the goal. Let’s arbitrarily state that even if one did everything, they could do that was under their control, but this does not guarantee or even lead to a likely scenario of attaining this goal (let’s say that your efforts only contribute to <49% of the way to the finish line), does this not imply loss of control? And if so, should this person not undertake this long-term goal in the first place?
Another aspect that I am personally having difficulty squaring are the dynamics between the control tenet and tenets 7 and 8: the idea that ‘We are all part of a greater whole’ and ‘Self-improvement should not be individualistic rather it should come with a net benefit for those around us’ respectively. In particular, where ‘we should not dismiss the issues which affect our world and those within it as distant and unimportant’. Global issues are in their nature incredibly hard to control by global organisations or countries, let alone individuals. Although the Locus of control is not the be-all and end-all of stoicism, at first glance it would appear that these global issues which are very much outside our control would be one of those things that one should not worry about.
Perhaps I am misinterpreting this aspect of stoicism, where sometimes the positive externalities of some actions supersede the lotus of control, and should therefore be undertaken. In such cases is it important to do the things one can do, and move along, happy to ‘play their part’ so to speak?
Ultimately, my main question centers around the idea of how a stoic would interpret a scenario where they have ‘influence’ over something. Their potential actions could impact future events or consequences, but not in a definitive way where the outcome can be predicted or expected reliably. You have described Stoicism as a very practical philosophy, so naturally each would have their own interpretation of this, but what would you say is the most common treatment of such scenario’s, and does your personal one differ from this at all?
Frank Ó'hÁinle: My personal views on Stoicism do differ from what many other adherents might profess, which is in and of itself a by product of how the philosophy is framed. Stoicism is extremely practical and elements that work for one practicing Stoic may not for another and do not require a strict dogmatic approach in order to be a true adherent to the philosophy. There is no gatekeeping in Stoicism and how we implement it in our everyday lives matters not as long as we stay true to the overarching principles.
The locus of control is a funny one in a number of ways, as on its face it is quite simplistic. However the difficulty lies in determining what lies within and what is not within our control and this is where the other principles of Stoicism play into the usage of the locus of control. It is far too simple an approach to look upon what faces us and take a binary approach dismissing what we perceive to be outside of our control without any further exploration of possible options and outcomes.
The point you make that we may not necessarily reach our intended goal in spite of taking all reasonable and necessary steps to attain it is an interesting one. I would argue however that it is not the destination which matters rather the journey we take to reach that point. Who we become as a result of the steps we take, the unfolding paths which emerge as we attempt to make it to a single defined point. This is far more important in my eyes, as we may never reach this destination, we may never attain the long sought after object of our desires. Yet step by step, decision by decision and moment by moment, we change almost unknowingly. If we have a worthy goal in mind and take steps which benefit not only ourselves but those who we come into contact with, it is almost guaranteed that we will become better for it. This will be reflected in the little corner of the world we find ourselves in and the positive reaped by those we come into contact with.
Further taking your example of global issues perhaps climate change as a case in point, the locus of control remains compatible. We can take steps in our every day lives to aid the cause of saving our world, recycling, composting, buying vintage clothes as opposed to fast fashion amongst a myriad of others. Yet we cannot overturn a system of capitalism bent on destroying our natural world for profit alone and when this system undoes the progress we yearn for, we should not blame ourselves. Rather we continue to do what we can where we can and not unfairly blame ourselves or place too heavy a responsibility on ourselves.
If enough of us take these steady conscious actions, voting for political candidates who are willing to take on this global system or even putting ourselves forward for public service, we can engage the locus of control to much wider issues. It matters not that we cannot exercise a degree of agency which guarantees a resolution to something as global an issue as climate change, but the actions we ourselves take can make our little part of the world better. This may not be groundbreaking but Stoicism has never claimed to be anything but a practical philosophy, that helps show us the right way forward and to reveal just who we are and could be if we just put our minds to living better step by step and day by day!
KWR: After reviewing big picture decisions upon which we may only have an influence on the outcome, it feels only natural to flip over to the opposite scenario’s- where miniscule, everyday decisions are influenced by external factors.
Persuasion has likely been with humanity for as long as communication has, the act of trying to get someone to do something for you, with you, or just something that you believe they should do in general. Where this action does not come instantly to the other person, one employs persuasion to try steer them in the ‘right direction’.
Manipulation, not too dissimilar to an evil shadow, has always been present together with communication and persuasion. Manipulation can be seen to occur when persuasion isn’t effective enough, or when more ‘subtle’ tactics are needed to achieve your goals.
The methods of persuasion and manipulation were certainly known in Athens at the birth of Stoicism, but ever since then these have been improved, then refined, then almost perfected into an art form throughout time. In our modern age, this has become a science, where immense efforts into the smallest details have been devoted to persuading someone to buy their products or to do something for them. Specific colours, fonts, words, sounds; pictures used, all in an attempt to activate both conscious and subconscious triggers in one’s brain, steering you to take one decision over another.
Furthermore, a modern consideration has arisen with the rise of algorithms and machine learning. With these algorithms being able to learn one’s behaviour and tailor content and suggestions, what you see is less and less up to you and your control. As a result, there is an increasing likelihood of you being trapped in a content bubble, with limited exposure to new things, scenario’s or information, and I’d argue that limited exposure often follows stagnation and stunted personal development and improvement, as familiarity with surroundings often results in complacency.
Even in the absence of external influences our brain and decision making still does not rely purely on logic and common sense, or produce optimal decisions most of the time. Perhaps the best explanation and dive into this idea was “Thinking Fast and Slow” by Daniel Kahneman, whose main premise was that a majority of our decisions are instinctive, emotional. With decisions done so quickly, I’d argue that it can be difficult to reach the aforementioned state of Apatheia under such time-pressed conditions- it’s almost inevitable that our decisions become affected by our subconscious fear, anger or other emotions.
It does spur the question as with regards to the idea that one’s actions should be your focus decided and enacted logically with reason. Furthermore, as you previously stated, ‘it is not the destination which matters rather the journey we take to reach that point’. But considering all the external influences, noticeable and miniscule alike, how much of it is actually OUR journey, how much of it is actually under our control, decided logically devoid of toxic emotions?
I do see the argument of ‘it is what it is’, that this is the world we live in and these are just the obstacles one must face when implementing Stoicism’s in one’s life, but I am curious to hear your perspective with regards to these things- are these just phenomena to be shrugged off, or do they merit further consideration when implementing Stoicism?
Frank Ó'hÁinle: Obviously the world has changed somewhat since Marcus Aurelius first penned his thoughts during the Marcomanni war. However, I would argue that this classical approach helps in handling such situations and the outward influence of social media, disinformation, etc.
In one such situation in my own life, I used to use Instagram far too much, and as has been shown in the past its influence on people is far from healthy. This degree of negative influence in my life reached its zenith when I was researching the Tate brothers for an article on them last year. This caused my feed to be filled with the likes of the Tates and other such red-pilled accounts.
I found this frustrating as even after my research had been conducted and the article finalized, my feed still consisted of naught else but angry right-wing lunatics. I could have attempted to change this algorithm by marking videos and posts I disliked as not interesting to me. However the algorithm remains to this day a fickle beast and that would take some time, so instead I used my rational Stoic approach and simply deleted the app.
I am still able to log in to my account if my friends wish to contact me but I am no longer dealing with the negative effects of the red pill accounts and Instagram more broadly. I focused on what I could control, I used a rational approach and I ranked my priorities in a manner befitting the Stoic ethos I attempt to live my life with. Generally speaking, I would recommend all individuals reduce their consumption of social media as much as possible.
More generally outside influences will obviously play their part, in our upbringing, background, access to education, etc. There is no denying this. However, it lies within all of us to dictate our own path as long as we stick to the approach of reason and logic. We maintain our independence through our ability to choose, to ensure that the negative aspects of the above and the negative emotions that stem from them do not prevent us from living virtuous lives.
In terms of practical steps, I would first limit exposure to social media in all of its forms. Where this cannot be avoided it is important to question the sources of information we consume. The possible perverse effects it can have on us and whether there is an ulterior motive from the individual presenting it to us.
This may not be the most inherently Stoic advice I have ever presented but it is useful to present a rational and ordered frame of thought when dealing with whatever comes our way.
This ends the third episode of our collaboration, I hope you have enjoyed, and stayed tune more episodes coming in the future!
That’s all from us for now, but stay tuned for future broadcasts,
This has been Kunga’s Written Radio and A Stoic for Any Season,
