In about everybody’s list of key Stoic ideas is the idea commonly called the “dichotomy of control.” As Epictetus famously put it:
Some things are within our power, while others are not. Within our power are opinion, motivation, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever is of our own doing; not within our power are our body, our property, reputation, office, and, in a word, whatever is not of our own doing. - Enchiridion 1
The problem is that the idea that some things are within our power and others are not is not a Stoic idea.
It’s an obvious idea.
Massimo Piglucci points out that the idea appears in many other places.
This is, of course, the same sentiment expressed by the 20th century Christian Serenity Prayer, used for instance by a number of 12-step organizations like Alcoholics Anonymous:
“God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.”
The sentiment is found in a number of other traditions as well. Solomon ibn Gabirol, an eleventh-century Jewish philosopher, for example, expressed it this way: “And they said: at the head of all understanding — is realizing what is and what cannot be, and the consoling of what is not in our power to change.”
Shantideva, an eighth-century Buddhist scholar, similarly wrote: “If there’s a remedy when trouble strikes / What reason is there for dejection? / And if there is no help for it / What use is there in being glum?”
Not only that, the idea appears in Hellenistic philosophies that compete directly with Stoicism.
Here’s Aristotle:
But not only are the vices of the soul voluntary, but those of the body also for some men, whom we accordingly blame…. Of vices of the body, then, those in our own power are blamed, those not in our power are not. And if this be so, in the other cases also the vices that are blamed must be in our own power. - Nicomachean Ethics III.5
Here’s Epicurus:
For he holds that we are responsible for what we achieve, even though some things happen by necessity, some by chance, and some by our own power, because although necessity is not accountable he sees that chance is unstable whereas the things that are within our power have no other master, so that naturally praise and blame are inseparably connected to them…. And he considers it better to be rationally unfortunate than irrationally fortunate, since it is better for a beautiful choice to have the wrong results than for an ugly choice to have the right results just by chance. - Letter to Menoeceus 133
Here it is in Pyrrhonism:
For in matters which are for us to decide we shall neither choose this nor shrink from that; and things which are not for us to decide but happen of necessity, such as hunger, thirst and pain, we cannot escape. - Diogenes Laertius, Life of Pyrrho, 106
A primitive version of the idea can even be found in the Delphic Maxims - which are among the earliest Greek wisdom literature. One maxim says, “control yourself;” another says, “do not trust fortune.”
Based on this wide agreement it appears to be true that some things are under our influence and some things are not.
It also appears to be true that lots of people need to have this idea pointed out to them or to be reminded of it. Just because the idea is obvious doesn’t mean that everyone is paying attention to it.
It’s also true that many people report life-changing experiences from incorporating this idea into their lives, such as this example. The idea is powerful.
What is not true is that this idea is Stoic™.
And to make things more interesting, it’s not even true that the Stoics are in agreement about how to understand the idea. “Control” is said to be a misleading term for the idea. Perhaps better is “up to us,” “our business,” “in our power.” It’s even contested that it should be viewed as a dichotomy. One popular Stoic writer, William Irvine, proposes that there is a “trichotomy of control,” which he describes in his book, A Guide to the Good Life:
The problem with [Epictetus’] statement of the dichotomy is that the phrase “some things aren’t up to us” is ambiguous: it can be understood to mean either “There are things over which we have no control at all” or to mean “There are things over which we don’t have complete control.” … Stated in this way, the dichotomy is a false dichotomy, since it ignores the existence of things over which we have some but not complete control. … This suggests that we should understand the phrase “some things aren’t up to us” in [a different] way: we should take it to mean that there are things over which we don’t have complete control. … This in turn suggests the possibility of restating Epictetus’ dichotomy of control as a trichotomy.
As Massimo Piglucci points out,
…modern Stoics and non-Stoic alike are often confused by the concept of the dichotomy of control. Our critics tend to interpret it as an invitation to quietism, to just endure whatever happens while sporting the mythical stiff upper lip. They are completely wrong, that is definitely not what Epictetus and Zeno (who originated the concept) meant…. But even some of our own seem to have trouble with it.
He goes on to dispute Irvine’s interpretation of the idea.
Stoic author Chris Fisher gives another take. He interprets the dichotomy of control as:
The ‘power to deal with impressions’ is all we control. We control our opinions, impulses, desires, and aversions, nothing more. Therein lies the rub; we moderns simply refuse to accept that we are not in control.... Fate and fortune constrain us far more than we like to admit. Some modern Stoic writers have expanded the Dichotomy of Control to a Trichotomy of Control to give us moderns ‘partial control’ over some external events. I think this opens the door to the very problem the Stoics sought to avoid: assuming too much power over outcomes. …the motive behind this expansion to a trichotomy is most likely to provide an escape from the teleological and theological implications of traditional Stoicism.
Not only do the Stoics disagree among themselves about what is and is not under our influence, even the claims they seem to agree upon do not appear to be proven.
The Stoics’ claim that aversion and desire are within our power does not seem to be true. Sure, we have some power to modify these, but while we can will ourselves not to eat when we are hungry, can we will away the desire for food when we are hungry? Can people willfully change whom they are sexually attracted to?
Their claim that some things are outside our power also does not seem to be true. We have some influence over our reputations and offices. A good reputation and a high office require striving for. We choose whether to strive. Sure, we may not succeed, but failure is nearly guaranteed to those who don’t even try.
Further inquiry finds no firm floor for what is in our power.
A Stoic once asked my wife, is it within your power to pick up the salt shaker that is in front of you?
Reflexively, it seems like the answer should be yes, but once one thinks harder about it, can one be sure? At the instant one reaches out for the salt shaker, someone may quickly snatch the salt shaker away.
Would one have picked up the salt shaker had they not been challenged to do so by the question? In other words, maybe it was really in someone else’s power for you to pick up the salt shaker and not your own? The question is like the famous scene in The Matrix: Don’t worry about the vase.
As the Buddha pointed out, everything in the world depends on multiple strings of causation. Hence, whatever you think is under your power is dependent upon things that are not under your power.
While many, many things are evidently not in our power, there remain things we may or may not have influence over, such as motivation, desire, aversion, property, reputation, office, and how to deal with impressions. It’s worth paying attention to these things.
As for the actions of others that seem to be within their power, it’s worth considering whether this is really true, or whether they are being driven by things beyond their control.
And maybe the best advice of all on this matter comes not from Epictetus or some other philosopher, but from the Oracle (from The Matrix): don’t worry about it.
A good friend and mentor of mine reframed the idea of "self-control" as "self-management." In my experience, this reframing is both more useful and much less obstructive.
My further reframing is to bifurcate what we prospectively call "effort," and the "motivational substrate" atop which that effort is afforded and applied. We recognize an impulse by what we know we would do without some suppressive effort, that is, we are motivated in a sudden and powerful way toward the "object" or "act" according to that impulse. We also recognize the ephemerality of an impulse by how quickly it dissipates upon an equal and opposite suppressive effort, should it not occur too little; too late.
This separation is not just intellectual or experiential. The effort relative to motivational pushes and pulls is often what we ask for, notice and appreciate when we can afford to do so, and when someone risks the vulnerability to let it show.
Cheers!