The Stoicism Scam
Exposing a Colossal Bait and Switch Trick
[This is a reprint of an article posted in September 2022 on Medium.com. I’m re-posting it to Ataraxia or Bust! as it was recently referenced in Is Stoicism Kayfabe? by Felipe Bovolon.]
Much of what is currently being promoted as “Stoicism” is not Stoicism in any meaningful sense of the term. It’s just self-help techniques that were widely accepted in ancient Greece. While it might seem that there’s no harm in people mistakenly thinking that by applying these self-help techniques that they are practicing Stoicism when they in fact are not, there’s actually a pernicious, hidden bait-and-switch scam going on with this.
Here’s the hard-to-see underlying structure of the scam:
The target of the scam is given self-help techniques that are uncontroversial and widely known to be effective.
These techniques are labeled as “Stoicism.”
As these techniques do, in fact, work, the target comes to trust the perpetrator of the scam.
Then, the pernicious part of the scam begins. The perpetrator starts giving the target controversial, problematic, and even ridiculous ideas, also labeled as “Stoicism” claiming that these will help the target of the scam just like the initial set of techniques did.
This last step of the scam is where the problems come out of hiding and start being noticed.
The scam comes in several variations. Some of them even have been given names, such as $toicism, Broicism, and stoicisM. Here’s an outline of these scams:
$toicism distorts Stoicism to make it a philosophy for achieving wealth and fame. Here’s an example of this scam: Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett All Use This Ancient Philosophy to Build Wealth, and a critique of it.
Broicism distorts Stoicism to make it a precursor of and philosophical foundation for the men’s rights movement. This scam is discussed at length in the book Not All Dead White Men: Classics and Misogyny in the Digital Age. Here’s a shorter critique.
stoicisM distorts Stoicism to make it a tool for military training. The foundational source for this scam is the book Thoughts of a Philosophical Fighter Pilot. Here’s a critique.
Let’s go into detail about how the machinery of this scam works.
In antiquity, interest in philosophy was about becoming wiser. It was self-help of the highest kind. People who read widely about wisdom often see parallels between ancient Greek wisdom and the wisdom traditions elsewhere in the world, particularly Buddhism. Wisdom, however, is wisdom the world around. Hence, there are lots of things the wise agree upon. This is the key component of the scam.
Let’s unpack that key component, using as an example the spiritual exercise known as “negative visualization” or by its Latin name, futurorum malorum præmeditatio (literally, pre-studying bad future).
Negative visualization is a spiritual exercise in which the practitioner visualizes various ways things can go wrong. For example, a teenage boy who is nervous about asking a girl out on a first date might think through all of the embarrassing ways his offer might be turned down and how those scenarios would make him feel. The benefit of this is that if one of those bad outcomes happen, the practitioner is mentally prepared for it. It will not come as a shock. With the element of surprise being absent, the practitioner will be better able to remain calm and act more appropriately in the situation.
To the best of my knowledge, no one has made a case that negative visualization, when used as a preparation in this way, is a bad thing or has something wrong with it. It is as easy to imagine a rabbi, a therapist, a Zen teacher, a sports coach, a drill sergeant, or just anybody with common sense recommending this technique. Yet, somehow, modern purveyors of Stoicism proclaim that this technique represents Stoicism.
This is hogwash.
We know it is hogwash because we actually have a record from antiquity telling us who invented negative visualization and first put it to use. It was the Cyrenaic philosophers.1 Sadly, not many people are familiar with this school of philosophy as, unlike Stoicism, so little information about it has been preserved, and most of that is from hostile sources. Also, unlike Stoicism, there’s been little interest in reviving Cyrenaicism, but kudos to at least one person who is trying.
The basic elements of Cyrenaicism are that the goal of life — what brings eudaimonia — is pleasure. Among the pleasures, the best pleasures are of the physical kind, rather than the mental kind. The Cyrenaic theory of knowledge is that all knowledge is subjective. The basic elements of Cyrenaic philosophy are thus nearly the exact opposites of those of Stoic philosophy, yet it was the Cyrenaic philosophers who invented this spiritual exercise now marketed as “Stoic.”
Once the Cyrenaics invented this technique, it was widely seen as a good technique that anybody could use. As it was good advice, ancient Stoic advice givers took to using it. For example, it appears in Seneca’s Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium — a text targeted to a practitioner of Epicureanism in which Seneca is candid about his method of dispensing wisdom, saying:
For what is more noble than the following saying of which I make this letter the bearer: “It is wrong to live under constraint; but no man is constrained to live under constraint.” Of course not. On all sides lie many short and simple paths to freedom; and let us thank God that no man can be kept in life. We may spurn the very constraints that hold us. “Epicurus,” you reply, “uttered these words; what are you doing with another’s property?” Any truth, I maintain, is my own property. And I shall continue to heap quotations from Epicurus upon you, so that all persons who swear by the words of another, and put a value upon the speaker and not upon the thing spoken, may understand that the best ideas are common property.2
But, based on the fact that some Stoics happened to recommend negative visualization, the technique somehow magically becomes not only “Stoic” but presented as one of the key elements of “Stoicism.”
This case with negative visualization is not a one-off occurrence in the modern marketing of Stoicism. It is rampant and pervasive. This marketing has appropriated the common property of ancient Greek wisdom, re-labeled it “Stoicism,” and set it forth as a kind of Trojan horse. Into that Trojan horse a variety of nefarious things can then easily be put, such as the previously mentioned $toicism, Broicism, and stoicisM.
Here’s a long but non-exhaustive list of some of the other pieces of ancient Greek wisdom common property that are now being sold as so-called “Stoicism.”
The view from above.
Things that one can and cannot control (aka dichotomy of control).
Memento mori — remember death.
Journaling.
Early morning and bedtime reflections.
Physical training for self-control.
Withholding judgment.
Re-labeling (e.g., a sumptuous meal is just a dead fish).
Examine your impressions.
Remind yourself of the impermanence of things.
Speak little and well.
Choose your company well. Strive to spend your time among good and wise people, avoiding wicked and foolish people.
Respond to insults with humor.
Avoid including judgments in what you say.
Keep your principles at hand and clear in your mind.
Understand why you are doing what you are doing.
Look for the good in others.
Consider others’ perspectives.
Remind yourself how silly it is to get offended.
Be on your guard against harmful thoughts and beliefs.
Meditate on the cosmos.
Strive to be happy with how things are rather than dwelling on wishing things were different.
Acknowledge the virtues of other people.
In dealing with mishaps that happen to you, follow the advice you’d give to someone else if the mishap had happened to them.
Pay attention.
The obstacle is the way.
If you look at the popular books and articles promoting Stoicism, you’ll find they’re overflowing with these pieces of common property and prominently sticking the label “Stoicism” on them.
Once the “Stoic” con-artist gets their target to try out these well-tested and universally well-regarded techniques and come to experience the predictable good results, then the con-artist can start taking advantage of the trust that they have gained with the target to start slipping in dubious ideas. In the case of $toicism those ideas are that practicing “Stoicism” can make you rich and powerful, like Seneca or Marcus Aurelius. In the case of Broicism those ideas are about taking on the ancient Roman prizing of masculinity and deprecation of femininity — ideas that can easily be found in ancient Stoic texts. In the case of stoicisM those ideas are about the suppression of one’s emotions for the purposes of engaging in violence.
Those are all pretty clear ways in which this “Stoic” scam gets perpetrated. But there’s another, bigger scam that’s been less noticed but which is also pernicious. It’s a scam that’s been going on since antiquity. Components of this scam include things such as getting people to believe that divination works, that the universe is providential, that virtue is the only good, that there’s some special art to life that only the Stoics know of and teach, and only those who follow this art of life are wise. Of course, many marketers of modern Stoicism have thrown out the least believable things the ancient Stoics put inside their Trojan horse, such as the parts about divination, Zeus, and the providential universe. They also try to forget that the early Stoics argued that incest and cannibalism were okay to engage in.
But, they’re still marketing contentious ideas about virtue.
No wonder Stoicism has an ongoing issue with people adopting it and then abandoning it, once they realize they’ve been fooled. Famously Dionysius the Renegade, one of the pupils of Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism, quit Stoicism. More recently, a well-known modern Stoic, Massimo Pigliucci, has done the same.
All those things you liked about Stoicism and benefited from when it was first sold to you are common property. There is no reason to ever again refer to them as “Stoic.”
They are yours.
[UPDATE: Aperture has released a video with a similar title and similar points as in this article.
Cicero, Tusculan Disputations Book III, Chapters XIII and XV
Book I, Letter XII
Awesome! Thanks Doug. I found this article quite insightful when I read it on Medium.
Though I’m still trying to practice Stoicism, I really appreciate well-structured challenges to my beliefs. All in search of Socratic “provisional truths” as Ward Farnsworth calls them in “The Socratic Method,” highlighting that “provisionality” is even more important than “truthfulness” in order to reduce ignorance. Ataraxia or bust, right?
This is definitely an article I’ll recommend to other Stoics. Leave the boat by the side of the river once you cross it, and all that.
This reminds me of how many people like Jordan Peterson because he recommends some good advice (make your bed in the morning, etc.) that they resonate with, but then if you look at the rest of his philosophy/psychology it gets more questionable. He’s hooking people in by writing a bunch of stuff that are really just general psychological recommendations.
I do think that’s a fair charge against Modern Stoicism, even excluding the $toicism and Broicism that are more explicitly antithetical to Stoicism. Modern Stoicism is more like various Ancient Greek practices + Stoicism, and it’s fair to point out the distinction.
I think the idea that virtue is the only good (true Stoicism) can be defended, but it does require defending! I think I read Massimo’s article back when it came out, but I can’t access it anymore since I no longer subscribe to Medium. I think he takes a more eclectic approach and incorporates some Academic Skeptic ideas regarding taking things probabilistically (whereas the Stoics did not fully have that idea and would often say only the Sage has knowledge). I don’t want to put words in his mouth though, so take what I said with a grain of salt there!
I think there’s also some reasonable debate about maybe acknowledging that “human flourishing” has value in addition to virtue (even if it isn’t required for the good life). Whether this would mean fully embracing the Aristotelian view or just saying it’s a bit eclectic between Aristotelianism and Stoicism is harder to say.