The deeds we do which portray ourselves in a positive light, the things we do that we’re proud of, can oftentimes be diminished in their expression, as far as morality is concerned. While a deed is good in itself whether or not it is expressed, our intentions become unclear and degraded by our sharing of them with others. Maybe we just did the activity to impress others, maybe we did it so we would look good, maybe we did it for fame or fortune, but when a good deed (in our own eyes, regardless of our conception of good) goes unreported, it proves to ourselves that our intentions were pure, that we did what was virtuous, solely for the belief in that it is the right thing to do. In not engaging in virtue signaling we prove, not to others, but to ourselves, that we did something difficult only to challenge ourselves, that we were kind and helped someone else without them knowing because we’re compassionate, not because we want them to believe we’re compassionate. This isn’t to say that there aren’t good reasons for sharing virtue. We might want to disclose our true character to someone to allow them to better know who we are. We might want to make our friends and family proud, or offer inspiration. In advising or teaching we may want to give a concrete example from our own experience to shed light upon how abstract thought is bore out in daily life.  The carrying forth of a virtue ethicist approach is part of the picture of Stoicism, and we find that the focus on reputation, fame, longevity, and youthfulness, are not the aims and intentions of Stoics, they are merely preferred indifferents, things which always come second to the primary aim of doing what is most virtuous.

Noticing which things are in our control, not in our control, or partially in our control is referred to as the trichotomy of control. Most of the time the relation between control / not control is referred to as the dichotomy of control but in seeing the relationship more clearly, we can better understand some things in their partial relation to our ability to influence them, and partially as being independent of our actions. In things in which we may wish to be different (happens a lot in our experience) we should look to as if they are able to be influenced by us or not. In effect, this is much more complex than it sounds. But as a base, our actions and speech is under our control. Others actions and speech is out of our control (in the present). World events and other natural phenomena are out of our control. The past is out of our control. The present is out of our control. What we can partially control would be the desired results of our actions. When we do something with the intent that something we want to happen should happen, if we succeed, there were indeed other variables, and it was partially in our control, and partially not. Of course on a technical level everything is determined (not necessarily supported by Stoics universally but there’s a debate about it), also on a technical level, there is always a possibility that we may affect something which originally strikes us as being out of our control. The future is all we have, and our actions in the present are how we can contribute to it. The Stoics use this idea in a basic sense, without really going into specific details on how we can possibly affect everything in the universe (in the future), at least in a minute way, by our present actions / speech. But the core concept is an important one, and it helps us to recognize that many of the things that plague us, should not, as there is nothing we can do about it.

Any cynical examination could display the flaw in this argument, maybe this is how the Cynics as a school posed a large opposition to the Stoics after their emergence. But on a practical note, for example, say your grandpa is dying, on a basic note, we suffer, but should we? Psychologically it might be beneficial to suffer to allow ourselves to grieve and be better able to navigate life later, there’s nuance to every situation of course, but to give an example of the “Stoic way”, a Stoic would see it as it is. Our grandpa is sick, he’s incurable, he will die soon. There is nothing we can do. We cannot save him. This is the fate we all inevitably must face, it is what is promised in any life, that it ends, always, in death, thus the Stoic reflection on “momento mori” or remember death. We should therefore not be angry, nor suffer, for the situation is out of our hands. Upon close examination I understand there is things we can do, which we must do, to remain virtuous, but most of the time we are ignorant of these, and this ignorance constitutes our present state. Marcus Aurelius would say, Grandpa is dying, period. We can be upset about it, and accomplish nothing, or we can accept it, and continue being virtuous regardless. Nothing more. No need to be angry, to be grief stricken, this would be unnecessary. We must accept it’s out of our control, there is nothing in our power to change it.

This leads me to the next core concept, Stoic contentment. Regardless of the situation, we must bare it bravely, courageously, with content. No matter where we find ourselves, in jail, physical pain, tortured, as slaves, at work, with an angry friend, being ridiculed, we must remain content. Why add an extra burden of psychological suffering when we have the power of thought to direct our mental state and be content with the situation (we do have the ability to consciously direct positivity even within the philosophical framework of the absence of freewill). After all, many of these things are out of our control, at least when we find them in the present (the only time that matters for us presently). So why add extra suffering on top of unpleasant situations? Bear them the best you can, wisely, obviously, but not with extra psychological suffering. Smile in the face of absurdity, in the face of a challenge, in the face of misfortune. Why not? Why not be content with misfortune? Obviously we work towards its overcoming, but we can find peace through accepting what has happened and contentment within the moment regardless of the externals. As far as virtue goes, this would actually be positive towards the restriction of spreading the suffering to others, to loved ones, through their witnessing of your externalized toil. It does us, and those we come into contact with, a great benefit if we are not in a state of self-imposed discontent. Of course if we make a mistake or find ourselves in a bad situation, we must not be proud of our shortcomings, or be unwise in naively smiling at the situation, but we must be stoic as to being content with the fact of the matter that it’s our fault, and strive to find a way to rectify it or not make the situation occur again in the future. This isn’t looking at the world through rose glasses, but understanding that the power of our thought is strong enough to allow us peace within the most unbearable situations, making our lives better.

Much of our current emotional psyche is dependent upon our interpretation and reaction to what is happening, thus we must strive to better understand, and better respond, to things that come our way. The stoics had an eye to living a good life, a happy life, and they also placed a large importance upon the content of our thought and our reaction to external events as they contributed to our individual wellbeing, and carried over to our virtue in being a good citizen, family member, friend, neighbor, etc.

The Stoics, in recognizing what they had control over (please don’t think of freewill or I’ve failed you all), in finding the power of thought, in being content with misfortune, also supported the idea of being content with little. In not searching after wealth or fame, but rather after good character, being a good person, having a good life. The stoic found these goals to be paramount, not pleasure or lavish living. If the effects of virtuousness happened to produce wealth, great, if not, great, what matters is the action and its effect on people, rather than its monetary gain. There was no state of life which cannot achieve this, even if we find ourselves extremely wealthy, or a position of power, the stoics found that these stations did not grant happiness, but that our thoughts, actions, and how we treat others is where the gold is to be found. Marcus Aurelius was an emperor, and Seneca an advisor to Nero, and both advocated living a simple lifestyle despite great power and fortune. They advocated not living lavishly, but according to need, and not seeking after gratifying base pleasures. Through living out their philosophy, in rejecting sensual pleasures and overindulgence, they achieved contentment through their virtue. On the other hand, Epictetus was a slave, and despite his situation, became a Stoic philosopher who landed upon the same findings of Marcus and Seneca, that even as a slave he could be content and through being virtuous in the ways he could. He found that he didn’t have to suffer as a slave, but could bear the misfortune honorably and still be able to provide services for others. It doesn’t matter the content of our lives, but our perspective on it, and how we react to that content.v