Why I Am Not A Stoic

2/23/2021 Why I Am Not a Stoic
Why I Am Not a Stoic

Opinion
There's a lot to like about stoicism, but it falls short in some

key areas for me. Here's my take on it and the other in uences
on my personal philosophy.
21 minute read • Philosophy
https://markmanson.net/why-i-am-not-a-stoic?utm_campaign=mmnet-newsletter-202107-02-15&utm_medium=email&utm_source=mmnet-newsl… 1/21
ver since the release of The Subtle Art of Not
E Giving a F*ck back in 2016, many people have

compared my work to Stoicism. Some have
even gone as far as to say that my work is
merely regurgitating Stoicism with a couple cool stories
and F-bombs thrown in to spice things up.
Initially, I found this amusing. I had read Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations

in college, as well as bits and pieces of Seneca. But other than that, I
knew very little about the Stoics when I wrote the book. Since then,
however, I’ve learned quite a lot more, and the more I’ve learned, the
more I’ve realized that (and sorry to rain on your parade) I’m not a
Stoic.
So what I’m going to do is give you a brief overview of Stoicism, look

at its basic tenets, and then discuss the ideas I agree with and the ideas
that I don’t. I’ll then finish the article by talking a bit more about my
philosophical background—which isn’t Stoicism—but rather
Buddhism and Existentialism. And then, of course, I’ll cover how these
philosophies differ from Stoicism.
Get your nerd hat ready, because shit’s going to get thick.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 2 3 4 5
What Is What Stoicism The Problems My Discover for
Stoicism? Gets Right With Stoicism Background: Yourself
Buddhism and
Existentialism
1
What Is Stoicism?
You often hear about the philosophers of Ancient Greece and Rome, but
if you’re like me, it’s hard to sort out all the names and ideas in your head.
Here’s a simplified way to think about it:
You’ve likely heard of Socrates. He’s the OG, the godfather of western
philosophy. Socrates taught Plato and Plato taught Aristotle. You’ve
probably heard that too. Then, Aristotle taught Alexander the Great but
Alexander the Great skipped the philosophy and went straight to
conquering most of the known world. You do you, Alex.
Anyway, what Aristotle argued was that happiness came from living a life
of virtue. He listed about a dozen of these virtues, such as courage,
temperance, wisdom, modesty, etc.
This sounded great on the surface. The problem was that people soon
realized they had different ideas about how to measure virtue. Is
“temperance” three beers or twelve beers? Is it right to be honest even if it
will hurt somebody or should one be compassionate even if it means
being slightly dishonest?
These perennial arguments caused Greek philosophy to split into four

schools of thought. These four schools would then dominate
philosophical discourse for more than five centuries… until the Christians
showed up and burned everybody’s books.1
The four schools were:
Cynicism
Skepticism
Epicureanism
Stoicism
The Cynics distrusted all worldly things. Today, we would consider them
as a kind of weird cross between minimalists and nihilists. Cynics gave
away their possessions, opted to live in poverty, and turned down any
favors offered to them. There are many famous stories about Cynics being
homeless, running around naked, pooping and fucking in strange places,
and basically being the trolls of the ancient world.
Whereas the Cynics thought everything was pointless, the Skeptics

believed that little to nothing could ever be known for sure. What was
virtue? What was truth? How do you know that the world was real, that
your memories are real, that anything is real?
No, they weren’t smoking pot in a college dorm. These were serious
philosophers with some serious points about what is knowable. They may
not have been a hit at parties, but they did make important contributions
to the philosophy of science—contributions that are still felt in
philosophy and science today.
Meanwhile, the Epicureans were hits at parties. Epicureans believed that

we’re all going to die, so fuck it, might as well enjoy yourself as much as
possible between here and there. Sometimes Epicureans are
characterized as “anything goes” libertines, but there was a lot of subtlety
and nuance to Epicurus’ ideas — it wasn’t just all about having fun all the
time, it was a different approach to virtue. That said, Epicureanism is the
“YOLO” philosophy of the ancient world.
Then there’s Stoicism. Stoicism is probably the most complex of the four
schools. Stoics believed in rationality as the path to virtue, and therefore,
happiness. They saw emotions as potentially dangerous distractions from
one’s goals. The Stoics believed that one should minimize one’s passions
and make decisions based as much as possible on facts.
Stoicism has made a bit of a comeback the past decade, largely due to a
number of popular books by Ryan Holiday and William Irvine, as well as
outspoken support from prominent thought leaders like Tim Ferriss.
Stoicism has become the philosophy du jour in the world of tech and
business advice and it’s not uncommon to see discussions of Stoic ideas
pop up at conferences, on podcasts, or even in business books.
I think this resurgence in Stoic philosophy is great. There’s a lot of value

in it. But there are also some aspects of it that I’m not so certain about.
First, I’ll go through the parts of Stoicism that I think are helpful and
backed up by what we know in psychology. Then I’ll touch on some of the
aspects of Stoicism that I’m a little less sure about and that is less
supported by the data.
Obviously, what follows here is predominantly my opinion, backed up by

my understanding of some relevant research. Many of these points can
(and should) be debated endlessly. So, before you send me an angry email
(not very stoic of you, by the way), just know that I know my summary
here is not perfect. But it’s not meant to be.
2
What Stoicism Gets Right
1. Focus on things you can control, ignore the rest.
Epictetus was a slave who arose to become one of the most important
Stoic voices of the Roman Empire. Perhaps his most famous and
important idea was that of only focusing on what you can control.
“The chief task in life is simply this: to identify and separate matters so
that I can say clearly to myself which are externals not under my control,
and which have to do with the choices I actually control. Where then do I
look for good and evil? Not to uncontrollable externals, but within myself
to the choices that are my own…”2
This idea has persisted throughout the millennia in various forms. Perhaps
you know it better as Reinhold Neibuhr’s “Serenity Prayer:”
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.
Psychologists sometimes differentiate between something called an

“internal locus of control” and an “external locus of control.”3 People with
an internal locus of control tend to believe that they are responsible for
most of what happens in their lives. They focus on what they could do
better or what they can influence in pursuing their goals.
People with an external locus of control are the opposite: they blame
others for their problems, find excuses to not pursue their goals, and
generally bitch and moan about the world until you’re ready to put your
head in an oven.
Reams of evidence show that people with internal locus of control tend to
be happier, less anxious,4 make better decisions, accomplish more of their
goals, yada yada. 5
In fact, this notion of “focus on what you can change, ignore the rest” is so
powerful that it’s been the core of just about every self-help movement,
from Alcoholics Anonymous to Tony Robbins. It’s so ubiquitous that the
genre is literally named after the idea. Samuel Smiles, the author of the
1859 book titled Self-Help, wrote the book because he wanted people to
understand that, “God helps those who help themselves.”
2. Accept pain and don’t chase pleasure.
The Stoics rightly noticed that most of the stupid shit people do, they do
because they think it’s going to make them feel good. People have a
tendency to overestimate the benefits of something that feels good in the
short-term and underestimate the costs in the long-term. Chasing things
like status and wealth and excitement can backfire terribly.
The Stoics also correctly noted that most of the good things in life are
painful and require some degree of sacrifice. Therefore, they framed their
idea of virtue in terms of being able to resist short-term pleasures for
some long-term gain.
This is just incredibly practical life advice that has become ubiquitous
throughout the world. The Stoics were just some of the first to clearly
explain it.
3. A good life is a virtuous life.
A couple of years ago, I wrote an extremely long article where I explained

why valuing highly abstract principles such as honesty, integrity, courage,
etc.—or what the ancients would call “virtue”—was, psychologically
speaking, probably the healthiest thing we can do, both for ourselves, but
also for our relationships and society.
I won’t try to sum up the arguments here. Instead, go read it if you’d like to
understand more.
Read: How to Grow the F*ck Up
4. Materialism – what is real can be calculated and

measured.
Now we’re getting into the philosophical weeds.
One of Plato’s core beliefs was that the physical world was merely an
imperfect reflection of a deeper, metaphysical realm of ideas.6 Plato’s
ideas were later adopted into Christian ideas of a permanent “soul” and
ideas about spirits.
The Stoics and Epicureans famously took a different tact. They believed
that nothing existed other than what we can see and experience ourselves.
Once you’re dead, you’re fucking rat meat, bro. There’s no soul, no
heaven, no spirit world to save you.
For these beliefs, the early Christian church would go on a rampage and
burn thousands of books, libraries, and people. Whereas Plato’s beliefs
about a parallel world of ideas and the soul were integrated into Christian
theology and preserved, Stoic and Epicurean ideas would take over 1,500
years to be rediscovered, oftentimes by accident.7
Eventually, these materialist ideas did make it back into Europe in the
15th century, where they were soon devoured by hungry minds of the
Reformation. These texts would then get passed around and soon inspire
the scientific revolution and Enlightenment. Then everyone lived happily
ever after.8
5. Memento Mori.
Finally, the Stoics were fond of a practice they called Memento Mori, or
“Remember that you will die.” While that sounds dark and like something
a kid with too much eye makeup would say, there’s a real practical
application to thinking about one’s own death.
You could leave life right now. Let that

determine what you do and say and think.
—Marcus Aurelius
”
“
As I wrote in my book, thinking about one’s death forces you to consider
what is truly important in your life. It’s only by imagining not being alive
that you can properly prioritize everything you are doing while being
alive.
This is another idea that shows up in a number of traditional religions. I

was first exposed to the idea in the Tibetan Book of the Living and Dying,
where meditation is described as a means for preparing for one’s death.
But it’s an idea that has found its way into modern times from
philosophers such as Nietzsche and Camus to business leaders like Steve
Jobs.
Steve Jobs' 2005 Stanford Commencement Address
3
https://markmanson.net/why-i-am-not-a-stoic?utm_campaign=mmnet-newsletter-202107-02-15&utm_medium=email&utm_source=mmnet-new… 10/21
The Problems With Stoicism
1. It is impossible to detach from our emotional reactions

and remain rational.
Before I dive into this, I should note that there’s a lot of debate around
this subject, not just today, but apparently even back in antiquity.
One of the core concepts of Stoicism is apathy. Today, we understand

apathy as a kind of laziness, but back then it meant something closer to
“unaffectedness” or “detachment.”
The Stoics argued that because emotions are excited by external events,
and external events are outside of our control, we should therefore detach
ourselves as much as possible from being affected by them in an effort to
remain rational. Seneca wrote about the process thus:
“Pain is slight if opinion has added nothing to it;… in thinking it slight, you
will make it slight. Everything depends on opinion; ambition, luxury,
greed, hark back to opinion. It is according to opinion that we suffer…. So
let us also win the way to victory in all our struggles, – for the reward is…
virtue, steadfastness of soul, and a peace that is won for all time.”9
So, the problem isn’t that stuff harms you (or others). It’s that you decided
it harmed you (or others).
Obviously, there is a lot of truth to this. In fact, I’ve argued in my books

that this realization is at the heart of building resilience.
But does this mean we should be entirely indifferent to harm? Should we

have no opinions or judgments about our emotions at all? What if
someone kills our family member? What if someone is sexually abusing a

child? Aren’t these righteous reasons to get angry or indignant or hateful?
These questions arose in the Stoics’ time and the question of how much
we should detach from our external experiences has been up for debate
ever since.
From the get-go, people criticized Stoics of being heartless “men of

stone.” Many Stoics argued that it wasn’t that you got rid of all emotions, it
was simply that you trained yourself to be unmoved by them—that you
are always able to pursue virtue in even the most heated of moments.
But, even then, that’s probably just unrealistic. With modern psychology,
we know that emotions penetrate much deeper into our conscious
thoughts than we originally thought. Much of what we experience as
rational thought is still highly laden with emotions. It’s actually impossible
to separate the two — and worse, when we believe we’re detaching from
our emotions, we’re often simply tricking ourselves. Not only is being
unaffected by our emotions probably impossible, but often we find that
people who try to resist their emotions usually need a lot more therapy
than those that embrace them. Paradoxically, it’s only by engaging and
expressing our emotions that they lose power over us.
2. It is impossible to be entirely rational.
I think one of the reasons the Stoics went astray on the emotion question
was simply because their understanding of human psychology was much
simpler than it is now.
Plato famously posited that the human mind had two parts: a horse and a
chariot. The horse was our emotions and the chariot was our reason.
Everyone back then assumed that the goal was then to tame and train our
inner horses to behave and do as they are told. In my book Everything is
F*cked: A Book About Hope, I refer to this as the “Classic Assumption” and
I explain why this is wrong.
The more we understand about the mind, the more we understand that
much of what we consider “rational” is merely the side effect of cognitive
biases, prejudices, and faulty perceptions—you know, emotions.
I’ve written at length about how our minds often hijack us when we
attempt to be rational and how we’re incredibly short-sighted in much of
our decision-making. You can read two articles that describe these issues
below:
Read: The Cognitive Biases That Make Us All Terrible People
Read: The Law of Unintended Consequences
But wait, it gets worse.
Sure, you might say, most of us are bad at making decisions. But we have
things like mathematics and logic and science! These tools correct for our
inherent irrationality.
Well, yes and no. On a practical level, sure. It’s important to apply the
principles of scientific experimentation in our own lives to make sure
we’re not getting carried away and doing something dumb.
But on the other hand, even these rock-solid fields of logic have been
undermined and shown to be contradictory in the past 100 years.
Whether it’s Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem showing that all
mathematical sets are internally inconsistent, or Derek Parfit’s incredible
proof demonstrating that the ideas of self-interest and individual
identities are logically inconsistent, in terms of knowing what’s objectively
true in the world, the Skeptics were kind of right: we don’t know a damn
thing.
3. We should give a fuck about some external things.
Finally, I’d be remiss not to mention what is perhaps the most common
ethical argument against Stoicism: shouldn’t some external events affect
us? Shouldn’t we care if someone threatens to kill our friend or our boss
takes credit for our work or our mother gets cancer?
I think there’s a fine line between prioritizing what you can control and
focusing on what you can control to the exclusion of all else and that line
is left muddy by the Stoics.
We should care about starving kids in Africa and the oceans warming and
federal reserve interest rates and the fact that we’re proud of our new
jacket. This is simply being human. The question is not about shutting out
the outside world, but rather having the correct prioritization for the
things that happen in the outside world versus our internal thoughts and
feelings.
I understand that this criticism is debated, and many, including Ryan

Holiday, vehemently argue that the Stoics did not mean that we should
totally remain indifferent to external events. But, to me, the fact that this
clarification needs to happen in the first place is an issue itself.
My Background: Buddhism and

Existentialism
I was late to the Stoicism party. I didn’t read the Stoics seriously until after
people began assuming I was a Stoic. Since then, I have found a lot to love
in their work.
But I would not classify my work as Stoicism. While there is overlap and
many similar messages, my focus and prioritization is a bit different.
My background is primarily Buddhism (in my twenties) and existentialism

(in my thirties). There is a lot of overlap between Buddhism, Stoicism, and
existentialism but there are also some key differences that are worth
understanding.
Buddhism and Stoicism
In many ways, I think Buddhism and Stoicism are perfect complements to

each other—the strengths of one compensates for the weaknesses in the
other.
Like Stoicism, Buddhism’s starting point is that life is painful and difficult
and chasing pleasure or seeking happiness simply compounds that pain
rather than alleviating it.
But, to me, Buddhism handles the nuance of emotional attachment much

better than Stoicism does. Whereas the Stoics focus on an apathetic
detachment from their passions in favor of reason, Buddhists believe that
both emotions and reason are equally illusory. Therefore, to detach
yourself from emotions in favor of reason, to a Buddhist, is just as much
an error as attaching yourself to your emotions.
I think the extra step the Buddhists found that the Stoics didn’t was the
illusory nature of “no self”—i.e., the idea that the ego doesn’t actually
exist, that it’s merely a ball of tightly knotted beliefs that can potentially be
undone. While the Stoics correctly pursued minimizing the ego, to my
knowledge, they never went as far as recognizing that the ego itself can be
dissolved entirely.
That said, I think the Stoics’ approach to how to go about living your
actual life is far more practical than Buddhism. Buddhism is pretty
hardcore. It believes that everything is illusory and, therefore, anything
other than sitting in a cave and meditating until we achieve enlightenment
(or ego dissolution) is pointless.
But even when you’re not meditating for years on end, Buddhism is
stuffed with tons of convoluted rules and prerogatives. Aside from the
Four Noble Truths and Five Aggregates, the Eightfold Path is full of
divisions, sub-divisions and lists of minor rules within them. Many of
these rules are incredibly ambiguous and hard to pin down (i.e., “don’t be
rude” or “no unwholesome states of mind.”)
I find the simplicity of Stoicism incredibly appealing in this regard.

Stoicism recognizes that virtuous acts require a constant effort, that virtue
can be approached but never permanently achieved, that what is “right” in
one context may not be “right” in another. Due to the infinite complexity
of our lives, this strikes me as a far more realistic approach to living a good
life.
Existentialism and Stoicism
Existentialism is a loose school of philosophy that began with Kierkegaard

and Nietzsche in the 19th century and came to prominence in the mid-
20th century, primarily through the French philosophers Jean-Paul Sartre,
Simone de Beauvoir, and Albert Camus.
Similar to Skeptics, existentialists start with the assumption that it is

impossible to know anything for sure and any attempt towards a concrete
rational understanding of the universe is going to be completely limited at
best, horrifically wrong at worst.
The existentialists: Jean-Paul Sarte, Simone de Beauvoir, and Albert Camus
But instead of focusing on disidentifying with the world like Buddhism, or

seeking rationality like Stoicism, existentialism is concerned with
responsibility and authenticity.
The reasoning goes like this:
None of us have any fucking clue what we’re doing. Our default state
is anxiety because we are constantly forced into making choices in a
life where we do not know what is right or good.
Because we’re always making choices, we are inherently responsible

for everything we choose to think, do, feel or experience.
We avoid this responsibility because it triggers more anxiety. Instead

we make up stories to ourselves and others about how it’s not our
fault, there’s nothing we can do, why is the world so mean to me, etc.
Sartre called this, living in “bad faith.”
Once we choose that we are responsible for the experiences in our

lives, it frees us to be who we really are. This is living in authenticity.
Authenticity is acting in the world in a way that is an accurate

reflection of your feelings, beliefs, and ideas.
Emotions are not necessarily good or bad, they are simply more
experiences that you are responsible for. Like anything, emotions can
either hide your true self or express your true self.
Behaving authentically requires courage and faith in oneself, but it

also rewards you with a better life, better relationships, and enables
you to achieve more of your goals.
You can already see some of the overlap with Stoicism here. The
existentialist focus on responsibility and choice is similar to the Stoic
reminder to only focus on what you can control.
The call for authenticity echoes many of the Stoic virtues such as courage
and wisdom.
The necessary confrontation of anxiety in every moment is similar to the

Stoic acceptance that life requires a certain degree of suffering.
In my opinion, I think the existentialists have a more realistic

understanding of human psychology than Stoicism or even Buddhism.10
They understand that knowledge is inherently limited, emotions are
inevitable, and that life is inherently flawed no matter what we do.
Therefore, all there is to do is develop enough self-awareness to take
responsibility in each and every moment for the choices we make, even
when they blow up in our faces.
Long-time readers will see pretty much my entire body of work reflected
in the last few paragraphs. That’s because I’m an existentialist. And while
I think the Stoics lay out some fantastic tools for navigating the world and
determining what is worth doing and what is not, existentialism lays a
philosophical foundation that I haven’t found anywhere else.
But that’s just me…
5
Discover for Yourself
The American philosopher Ken Wilber used to joke, “No one is smart
enough to be wrong all the time.” His point was that every school of
thought is right about something. But every school of thought is also

partial and incomplete.
I believe that is true. As a result, I believe that it’s our responsibility to

seek out various philosophies and construct a coherent belief system for
ourselves. For some people, Stoicism will be a bedrock for that system.
For others, it won’t. But as any good stoic would say, that’s fine.
Seek out and discover for yourself what your belief system consists of. It’s
a duty we all have and no one can do for you. My belief system is a hodge-
podge of the three schools of thought discussed here.
What will yours be?
Books on Stoicism
Meditations by Marcus Aurelius
Letters from a Stoic by Seneca
Discourses by Epictetus
A Guide to the Good Life by William Irvine
The Daily Stoic by Ryan Holiday
Books on Buddhism
What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula
Zen Mind; Beginner’s Mind by Shunryu Suzuki
The Heart of the Buddha’s Teachings by Thich Nhat Hanh
The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying by Sogyal Rinpoche
Books on Existentialism
Existentialism is a Humanism by Jean-Paul Sartre
The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus
Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche
This Life by Martin Hagglund
Footnotes
1 For more on this, see: The Darkening Age by Catherine Nixey.↵
2 Epictetus, Discourses, 2.5.4–5↵
3 Rotter, Julian B (1966). “Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement”. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied. 80 (1): 1–28.↵
4 Tas, I., & Iskender, M. (2018). An Examination of Meaning in Life, Satisfaction with Life,
Self-Concept and Locus of Control among Teachers. Journal Of Education And
Training Studies, 6(1), 21-31.↵
5 Boone, C., Van Olffen, W., & Van Witteloostuijn, A. (2005). Team locus-of-control
composition, leadership structure, information acquisition, and financial performance:
a business simulation study. Academy Of Management Journal, 48(5), 889-909.↵
6 Plato’s most famous explanation of this idea came from his Allegory of the Cave.↵
7 For an awesome explanation of this, check out The Swerve by Stephen Greenblatt.↵
8 HAHAHAHA!↵
9 Seneca, Epistles, lxxviii. 13–16↵
10 In the Stoics and Buddhists’ defense, the existentialists have had about 2,000 more
years of human civilization to work off of.↵
© 2021 Infinity Squared Media LLC

Why I Am Not A Stoic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Why I Am Not A Stoic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2/23/2021 Why I Am Not a Stoic

Why I Am Not a Stoic

There's a lot to like about stoicism, but it falls short in some

21 minute read • Philosophy

ver since the release of The Subtle Art of Not

E Giving a F*ck back in 2016, many people have

Initially, I found this amusing. I had read Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations

So what I’m going to do is give you a brief overview of Stoicism, look

These perennial arguments caused Greek philosophy to split into four

The four schools were:

Whereas the Cynics thought everything was pointless, the Skeptics

Meanwhile, the Epicureans were hits at parties. Epicureans believed that

I think this resurgence in Stoic philosophy is great. There’s a lot of value

Obviously, what follows here is predominantly my opinion, backed up by

1. Focus on things you can control, ignore the rest.

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot

Psychologists sometimes differentiate between something called an

2. Accept pain and don’t chase pleasure.

3. A good life is a virtuous life.

A couple of years ago, I wrote an extremely long article where I explained

Read: How to Grow the F*ck Up

4. Materialism – what is real can be calculated and

Now we’re getting into the philosophical weeds.

You could leave life right now. Let that

This is another idea that shows up in a number of traditional religions. I

Steve Jobs' 2005 Stanford Commencement Address

The Problems With Stoicism

1. It is impossible to detach from our emotional reactions

One of the core concepts of Stoicism is apathy. Today, we understand

Obviously, there is a lot of truth to this. In fact, I’ve argued in my books

But does this mean we should be entirely indifferent to harm? Should we

someone kills our family member? What if someone is sexually abusing a

From the get-go, people criticized Stoics of being heartless “men of

2. It is impossible to be entirely rational.

Read: The Cognitive Biases That Make Us All Terrible People

Read: The Law of Unintended Consequences

But wait, it gets worse.

3. We should give a fuck about some external things.

I understand that this criticism is debated, and many, including Ryan

My Background: Buddhism and

My background is primarily Buddhism (in my twenties) and existentialism

Buddhism and Stoicism

In many ways, I think Buddhism and Stoicism are perfect complements to

But, to me, Buddhism handles the nuance of emotional attachment much

I ﬁnd the simplicity of Stoicism incredibly appealing in this regard.

Existentialism and Stoicism

Existentialism is a loose school of philosophy that began with Kierkegaard

Similar to Skeptics, existentialists start with the assumption that it is

The existentialists: Jean-Paul Sarte, Simone de Beauvoir, and Albert Camus

But instead of focusing on disidentifying with the world like Buddhism, or

The reasoning goes like this:

Because we’re always making choices, we are inherently responsible

We avoid this responsibility because it triggers more anxiety. Instead

Once we choose that we are responsible for the experiences in our

Authenticity is acting in the world in a way that is an accurate

Behaving authentically requires courage and faith in oneself, but it

The necessary confrontation of anxiety in every moment is similar to the

In my opinion, I think the existentialists have a more realistic

But that’s just me…

thought is right about something. But every school of thought is also

I believe that is true. As a result, I believe that it’s our responsibility to

What will yours be?

Meditations by Marcus Aurelius