5 Reasons Stoicism Is Better than Tax Evasion

As explained by wikipedia: Tax evasion is the illegal evasion of taxes by individuals, corporations, and trusts. Tax evasion often entails taxpayers deliberately misrepresenting the true state of their affairs to the tax authorities to reduce their tax liability, and it includes dishonest tax reporting, such as declaring less income, profits or gains than the amounts actually earned, or overstating deductions. Here are 5 reasons Stoicism is better than tax evasion.

  1. In 2008 it was estimated that the US federal government lost 450 – 500 billion dollars per year in tax revenue due to tax evasion. Stoicism does not lose that much potential revenue to the IRS.
  2. Tax evasion means purposely misrepresenting one’s tax liability to authorities. Stoicism believes in the Cynic principle that one should strive to do in public what you would do in private. Stoicism would never permit oneself to misrepresent one’s tax liability. Stoicism might require one to be civil disobedient and purposely and publicly not pay taxes but that’s different than tax evasion.
  3. Tax evasion can lead to fines and/or imprisonment in developed countries. Stoicism shouldn’t lead to fines and/or imprisonment in developed countries.
  4. Tax evasion can be associated with corrupt tax officials helping out tax evaders in exchange for bribes. Stoicism isn’t associated with any corruption. In fact, the Stoic Emperor Marcus Aurelius is perhaps the pinnacle of an incorruptible statesman.
  5. Tax evasion is often done with the purpose to increase one’s wealth. If you follow Stoicism, you’ll learn that you are always wealthy no matter what amount of items you own.

American Pragmatism: Why Stoicism is True because It Works

Do our thoughts mirror reality? Or are they just a tool for prediction, problem-solving or action? Philosophical pragmatists think it’s the latter. In fact, pragmatists aren’t necessarily interested in whether ideas correspond to reality or not but they are specifically interested in whether ideas serve practical purposes in our daily life. Pragmatism originated from Charles Sanders Peirce and his pragmatic maxim:

“Consider the practical effects of the objects of your conception. Then, your conception of those effects is the whole of your conception of the object.”

Peirce, 1878, p. 132

Peirce is saying that the meaning of any idea that one has is meaningful if it has some practical effects observed in the world. William James took the pragmatic maxim and expanded it to concern the truth of our thoughts. For example, does Stoicism, as a system of thought, mirror reality? How about all of Stoicism’s various precepts, like “virtue is the only good”? Or is Stoicism and its individual ethical prescriptions simply part of a narrative that helps people cope in their daily lives with come-what-may? For philosophical pragmatism, Stoicism’s precepts could mirror reality but there’s no denying that it’s a useful system as a whole. What’s more is Stoicism is part of a coherent worldview that mutually supports Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. It’s a plus that Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Stoicism are theoretically in accordance since Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is a scientific gold standard therapy that produces effective and evidence-based results.

There’s no denying that Stoicism as a whole is a useful system of thought. It helps its practitioners view, interact, and use externals without morally judging them. This allows Stoic practitioners to free their minds of the problematic conception that externals are either good or bad. By regarding externals as ethically neutral, practitioners can focus on intrinsic goals. Their cognitive resources are freed up significantly from anxiety and anger towards things that are beyond their control.

Stoicism is also adaptable because its metaphysics can expand with new discoveries in the realm of scientific naturalism. Marcus Aurelius made clear in the Meditations that he could make use of Stoic ethics, whether the world was constituted of “providence or atoms.” Marcus Aurelius could adjust to these circumstances by continuing to live by the maxim that virtue is the only good. In fact, somewhat radically, Marcus Aurelius suggested that if something comes across his mind that is better than virtue, he’ll follow it (Meditations 3:6), which means that he believed the core doctrine of Stoic ethics is in principle falsifiable.

The Stoic ethic, “virtue is the only good,” not only can help individual practitioners but it is socially helpful. The pragmatist John Dewey thought that morals boil down to maxims that assist humans in achieving social ends that produce a satisfying life for individuals in society (Field, n.d.). If John Dewey were alive today, perhaps contemporary Stoic philosophers could convince him that Stoicism fits that social role. After all, if society stressed virtue as the sole good and individuals en masse followed virtue as the sole end, then there should be social effects that are good for individuals in society.

As discussed above, from the pragmatist perspective, it matters not whether Stoicism and its precepts truly correspond to reality-with-a-capital-R. All that matters is that it and its precepts work effectively at achieving important social ends. It also helps that Stoicism coheres with existing worldviews that are also instrumentally good, like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. Stoicism as a system works well for the individual, for society, is adaptable, and is falsifiable. To pragmatists, it should be quite instrumental.

References

Peirce, C.S. (January 1878). “How To Make Our Ideas Clear.” Popular Science Monthly. 12, 286-302.

Field, R. “John Dewey.” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (ISSN 2161-0002). Retrieved from https://www.iep.utm.edu/

Why the Universe Being Good or Rational Is Not a Fallacy of Composition

The Stoics believed the whole cosmos to be God which directs all things along their determined paths. The Stoics believed the universe to be composed of an active and creative fire or breath (pneuma) that was coextensive with passive matter (ousia). Pneuma is like a field that emanates through all the ousia and gives ousia its stable physical form.

Richard Feynman believed that electromagnetic fields, which could be likened to the Stoic concept of pneuma, are real and existing fields that have their own energy.

“The fact that the electromagnetic field can possess momentum and energy makes it very real … a particle makes a field, and a field acts on another particle, and the field has such familiar properties as energy content and momentum, just as particles can have.”

 Richard P. Feynman (1970). The Feynman Lectures on Physics Vol I. Addison Wesley Longman.

So pneuma could be rightly thought of as a field that emanates through all of passive matter throughout the universe and help give it stable properties. Pneuma can create the conditions for life, sensations, and then rational self-awareness.

There’s been this belief that the Stoics have committed a fallacy of composition by regarding the universe as both good and rational. But they were careful to distinguish properties of objects and events from the whole body of objects and events. The Stoics described events, objects, and things like wealth, health, pain, pleasure, a stormy night, a beautiful sunset as neither good nor bad. But they claimed that the universe, the complete picture, or all of the events as one whole thing is good or is rational. This is clearly not a fallacy of composition.

The Stoics believed that the universe was good and rational because it had made a world of rational beings. Also, the planets, moon, and the sun all appear to move in an ordered rational manner. The tides went in and the tide went out. Everything as far as they could see was rational and well ordered from the smallest to the largest scales. That’s not a fallacy of composition, that is a fact. Even today in modern physics, there are rational laws from the tiniest particles to the largest superclusters of galaxies.

The Stoics did not believe that the universe is like any organism on Earth. But they did believe it was alive and rational and good because it at least created humans which are also capable of using reason. The universe appears to act in accordance with itself the way that we should also act in accord with ourselves. Everything that the universe does and creates, we should want. That doesn’t mean we should allow vicious people on Earth to do vicious things. We should obviously stand against injustice but while acknowledging that everything unfolds from a blueprint that acts through every concurrent sets of events.

So, again, the Stoics did not commit any fallacy of composition with regard to thinking of the universe as rational or good. Instead, they noticed that everything happened in a lawlike way on every scale, just like we should regulate ourselves and become virtuous Sages.

5 Things You Must Know about Stoic Physics

Per wikipedia:

Stoic physics is the natural philosophy adopted by the Stoic philosophers to explain the natural processes at work in the universe. According to the Stoics, the cosmos is a single pantheistic god, one which is rational and creative, and which is the basis of everything which exists. The nature of the world is one of unceasing change, driven by the active part or reason (logos) of God which pervades all things. The active substance of the world is a ‘breath’, or pneuma, which provides form and motion to matter, and is the origin of the elements, life, and human rationality.

Wikipedia contributors. (2020, October 29). Stoic physics. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 00:54, November 2, 2020, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stoic_physics&oldid=986115379

Here are 5 things you must know about Stoic physics.

  1. The Stoics physics has three key features: monism, materialism, and dynamism. The Stoics believed the universe is monistic. They thought that universe was one whole complete and cohesive unit with all the parts interacting and having an affinity for another. The Stoics thought that the universe was composed only of a material substance and even abstract things like justice and wisdom were corporeal. The Stoics did acknowledge the reality of things like void, space, and time but they thought they subsisted on material bodies and did not exist on their own. Stoic physics was also dynamic. The Stoic split matter into two different sorts, active matter and passive matter. There is matter that is capable of acting upon or is acted upon.
  2. The Stoics once held that the active principle of the universe (aka God) is a creative fire. But later accounts describe the active principle as pneuma (or breath). Pneuma is believed to be coextensive with all passive matter (ousia). Pneuma gives stable physical properties to objects.
  3. The Stoics saw the cosmos as a finite spherical being which is embedded in an infinite void, with fixed stars, sun, and planets orbiting the Earth. The Stoics believed that the cosmos would expand or contract in volume during its cycles.
  4. The Stoics, going against Aristotle, rejected three of the four types of causes and stuck with efficient causation, which is the cause and effect relationship modern science uses to explain phenomena. Aristotle believed that all matter had a final cause to which things aspired to be. The Stoics, disagreeing with Aristotle, believed that the reason of things, the logos, was deeply interspersed with all inactive matter, helping matter generate new objects and new life. The universe is thought to be rational and alive but not in a modern biology textbook definition of alive.
  5. The Stoics believed and still do believe that determinism is true, that every happening has a cause. The Stoics also believe that every rational human has the capacity for self-control or autonomy. People bring up free will but it’s actually a red herring because the Stoics weren’t concerned with free will the way people define it today. Finally, the Stoics believed only in efficient causation and only materially or physically existing things. You could say that the Stoics got a lot right regarding the cosmos. You could also say they got everything right (and making a case for that seems plausible).

5 Reasons Stoicism Is Better than a Gender Reveal Party

A gender-reveal party is an event or celebration had during pregnancy. The primary goal of this event is the eponymous “reveal” of the baby’s expected gender based on the sex expected to be assigned at birth to the expecting parents, family, and friends. Here are 5 reasons Stoicism is better than a gender reveal party.

  1. Gender-reveal parties are a misnomer. It’s not actually gender that is revealed but the sex of the baby. Gender is actually impossible to reveal medically. Stoicism is not a misnomer and specifically refers to the belief that virtue is the only good and everything other than virtue or vice is neither good nor bad.
  2. Gender-reveal parties are problematic because they only concern male-female binary divisions of gender, which also erroneously assumes that a child won’t be intersex. Stoicism does not rely on male-female binary division and instead assumes that everyone is capable of living a life that is rationally conductive to virtuous and eudaimonic living.
  3. Since gender-reveal parties reinforce sex and gender assignment and gender essentialism, including minimizing transgender identification, then this can cause mental and emotional health issues. Stoicism helps individuals fix their problems with negative emotions like anxiety and anger. The more one develops in their Stoic practice, the easier it becomes to resolve emotional difficulties with adverse circumstances. This often means helping one become courageous and more temperate in character.
  4. Gender-reveal parties cause forest fires. If you practice Stoicism, then you can help prevent forest fires.
  5. Gender-reveal parties are, as mentioned earlier, predicated on male-female gender dualism. Dualism is a problem for many philosophical theories, for example, Platonism. The idea in Platonism is that the rational self must learn to conquer the emotional or appetitive self. Stoicism undoes duality by defining humans as wholly rational creatures that can learn to live a eudaimonic life. In Stoicism, there is no distinction between emotions and reason. Unhealthy emotions like hate are merely emotions that occur when a person is not reasoning correctly about the world and are undervaluing virtue.

How Stoicism Is Like Having Your Cake and Eating It Too

You can’t have your cake and eat it too is an old proverb. But it’s obviously quite dated. I mean, people implicitly mean that they’re going to eat cake when they ask, “can I have that piece of cake?” So the logical implication is quite apparent that if you are going to have your cake, you are certainly going to eat it too. But anyway, playing on the old idea that if you eat your cake, then you can’t have it since you ate it, well, I think Stoicism is a situation where you can have your cake and eat it too. Stoicism is about having an obstacle and having the path. The obstacle in the path becomes the path, right?

There are a few ways in which Stoicism is like having your cake and eating it too. Stoicism requires investment and the only thing you get out of it is being virtuous, right? So that seems like it’s quite a taxing philosophy, right? Well, yes and no. Before Stoicism, life is hard and practicing Stoicism is harder. So why would anyone practice Stoicism if life is hard and Stoicism is harder? Because while there is some effort put into practicing Stoicism, it pays you back incalculably.

The payoff from Stoicism is worth more than the hard life you had before and the time you put into practicing Stoicism. One of the doctrines of Stoicism is that everyone is mad except for the Sage. What this means is that without a life of virtue, we’re consumed by suffering. All of our negative emotions spring from a lack of wisdom. The important wisdom that we lack is that externals actually make no difference to our character and our character is entirely in our control. To have a good character, we must first have a good will and a good judgment that realizes that only virtue is truly good and the only thing truly worth wanting. Everything else is either preferred, dispreferred, or absolutely indifferent. Epictetus reminds us that wealth doesn’t make us better, wealth just makes us wealthier. Health doesn’t make us better, health makes us healthier. What makes us better is being more virtuous. That means being wise, being just, being courageous, and being temperate. So being virtuous means being free from suffering since we don’t invest all of our concern into externals like health, wealth, and reputation. Our freedom from suffering (i.e., pathos) is the reward we get from following virtue.

The Stoics state that virtue is sufficient for happiness. This is a specific form of happiness called eudaimonic happiness. It’s purposefully and virtuously generated happiness that results from living without pathos (suffering) and developing eupatheia. Eupatheia is what is referred to as the good feelings. Eupatheia are the feelings that the Sage will have. The Sage will have the feeling of joy, which is a rational kind of elation. The Sage will also have the feeling of caution, which is respect and modesty. And, finally, the Sage will have the feeling of wishing, which is goodwill, benevolence, friendliness, and affection. So the work that you put into becoming virtuous pays for itself and rewards you with positive feelings like joy and goodwill.

One last thing that must be mentioned is that we experience pain in life but Stoicism helps us stop further inflaming the pain by judging it as evil and something to be hated. We can experience very unpleasant situations and it can be hard sometimes to stand back and not let the situation drag us into the mud. But, Stoicism says that if you try hard at living a life of virtue and prepare yourself for circumstances that require temperance and courage, it’ll be easier to react more rationally and calmly to situations that are painful and adverse. And that in itself will make life go easier.

Stoicism is exactly like having your cake and eating it too. Adverse situations can shape you into a better and more joyful person. It’s all about how you use the situation. Virtue requires investment but virtue rewards you incalculably by giving a eudaimonic life free of negative passion and full of positive passion. So if anyone ever tells you that you can’t have your cake and eat it too, tell them about Stoicism. Tell them that the obstacle is the way and how the cake that is eaten is also had.

5 Reasons Stoicism Is Better than a Dumpster Fire

Whether it’s a dumpster fire in a literal sense or a dumpster fire in a figurative sense, Stoicism is better than a dumpster fire. Here are 5 reasons why Stoicism is better than a dumpster fire.

  1. While dumpster fires are only a small set of fires, Stoicism is predicated on the belief that elemental fire is the primordial element of the universe. The universe had a fiery beginning and it will have a fiery end. Literal dumpster fires are severely limited in their spatial and temporal scope (especially since dumpster fires have only been around since dumpsters have been around). Stoicism concerns every form of fire and is also useful as a metaphor for energy. The universe began with energy that quickly expanded and cooled forming matter (matter is thought of as frozen energy).
  2. Dumpster fires can be created for good or for evil purposes. Stoicism is an ethical philosophy that helps you develop a good character which lives in harmony with nature.
  3. When someone says a situation is a dumpster fire, it’s usually meant that there is a disastrously mishandled situation. Fortunately, Stoicism allows us to be coolheaded in a dumpster fire situation. Stoicism allows us to realize that externals are beyond our control and gives us the ability to deal with the situation as best as we can. If we can fix the situation, then the fates allow it, and if we can’t fix the situation, then the fates don’t allow it.
  4. Dumpsters were invented in 1935 CE, which means that dumpster fires could’ve only occurred as early as 1935. Stoicism has been around since 300 BCE, so it’s obvious that Stoicism has more staying power than dumpsters and dumpster fires.
  5. Sometimes dumpster fires can be, well, dumpster fires. Firefighters have to take dumpster fires just as seriously as structural fires because it’s unknown what is burning inside of a dumpster. Firefighters can sustain serious injuries without the proper precautions or PPE. Similarly, it’s very important to take Stoicism seriously and apply it carefully since many people get it wrong. But if you mess up at Stoicism, it’s not going to make your life any worse than your life was before you started applying it. That’s the cool thing about Stoicism: if you mess up applying it, learn some more and apply again. You won’t get 3rd degree burns from that.

Why Stoics Must Have Humor

Humor has had a bad reputation among philosophers for thousands of years. Humor and laughter have had very few mentions by philosophers and when they are mentioned they are characterized in negative terms. Plato and Aristotle viewed humor as malicious or merely a form of mockery. Plato thought that comedy should be tightly regulated by the state. Epictetus’s Enchiridion (33) advises “Let not your laughter be loud, frequent, or unrestrained.” It is claimed that Epictetus never laughed at all.

Unfortunately things didn’t improve in the time of Hobbes and Descartes because the Biblical and ancient view of humor was still the dominant theory. The dominant theory was known as the Superiority Theory. Humor was seen only in the lens of feeling superior to others or over our former selves. It is true that people do often laugh at their superiority over others and you can find many examples of this. Today it’s called punching down instead of punching up. But it’s obvious that this theory of humor is limited since it didn’t account for all forms of humor. It wasn’t until Kant that we have the view that humor is about incongruity. Yes, as humorless as we view Immanuel Kant, he proposed a view of humor that is not negative. Humor is when we expect something to happen but when it doesn’t happen as expected, we laugh. Kant explains humor in depth:

In everything that is to excite a lively convulsive laugh there must be something absurd (in which the understanding, therefore, can find no satisfaction). Laughter is an affection arising from the sudden transformation of a strained expectation into nothing. This transformation, which is certainly not enjoyable to the understanding, yet indirectly gives it very active enjoyment for a moment. Therefore its cause must consist in the influence of the representation upon the body, and the reflex effect of this upon the mind.

Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment, p. 133

Kant’s view of humor, in the realm of philosophy, is certainly a breakthrough since it undoes years of humor being portrayed as vicious or having a lack of self-control. A good example of incongruity is in Monty Python and the Holy Grail when the Bridgekeeper wants King Arthur and his knights to answer what one would presume are difficult questions. But against our expectations he asks very simple questions like what is your favorite color? And just when you think it would be easy for one knight to answer the color question our expectations are destroyed when the knight actually has difficulty answering what should be a simple question and is then thrown to his death on the rocks below. This is totally the kind of humor that is classified in terms of incongruity. The comedy group Monty Python are superior at delivering incongruity humor in the form of non sequitors.

So why is it important for Stoics to have a sense of humor? I mean, didn’t I just write earlier about how Epictetus seemed to be against humor? Well, it’s because Chrysippus is such a shining example that outdoes all the other Stoics. It is said that there would be no Stoic school without Chrysippus. Chrysippus was the brilliant Stoic who intellectually stood up to the Academy and wrote 700 books defending Stoic principles. He developed propositional logic and made arguments for free will compatible with a determined universe that are still useful today. But he is also known for something just as important. He laughed to death. It doesn’t matter if someone like Epictetus thought humor was only about ridicule. It doesn’t matter if any other Stoic thought that humor was only about superiority. Chrysippus died laughing because he thought it was absurd that a donkey would eat human food, which happened to be figs. If Chrysippus could laugh to death, then we, as Stoics, should be able to laugh to death. It’s a right. I don’t know if the story was told to discredit Chrysippus or was used against his reputation but he laughed at something because he didn’t expect it. He didn’t expect a donkey to eat human food, which fits with the incongruity theory of humor.

So we should realize that philosophy, for thousands of years, has mostly neglected or has been unfair to humor. But, we know that that it takes just one Stoic because of their intellectual prestige to make it possible for Stoics to have humor. If it weren’t for Chrysippus, there would be no Stoic school. And if it weren’t for Chrysippus, there’d be no Stoic humor.

Would Rejecting the Stoic Physics Make Stoicism 2.0 Or Would It Make Cynicism 1.0?

While I am a fan of Stoic physics and I do agree with essentially all of it, I have to say that before Zeno of Citium developed the Stoic physics, Stoicism already existed mostly in the form of what we call Cynicism. And truly noble people were Cynics and were correct that virtue is the only good. The Cynics were correct that virtue is the only good not because of arguments but because they lived it. I also think people who are Stoic who admire the Cynics don’t seem to mind that the Cynics don’t have a physics.

Yes, it is true that Stoicism changed things by claiming that certain indifferents (externals called adiaphora) were preferred, such as health, wealth, reputation, and education over indifferents like sickness, poverty, ill repute, and ignorance. Stoicism added that these preferred indifferents were preferred because they naturally and frequently help with our ability to seek virtue or were useful for acting virtuously. For example, you can’t help out a friend if you’re too sick and poor and that’s why health and wealth are preferred. I’ve noticed no one spends significant time attacking Cynicism as a philosophy because of the lack of Cynic physics. No one ever does that because the Cynics were admirable for being virtuous in itself. We believe them by their examples and actions and not by their doctrine.

So why would it matter if Stoics didn’t have a physics if Stoics were also admirable and lived a virtuous and eudaimonic life? Why does it suddenly matter when it’s Stoicism but not Cynicism? I think it’s largely because it’s an unnecessary distraction based on the ancient Stoics claim that ethics and physics were all wrapped up and were inseparable. But I’ve never actually seen a convincing argument for why that is even true. Why would a universe that is not completely determined make the pursuit of eudaimonic virtue any less true? Not having a physics for the Cynics made no difference to their pursuit of virtue, right? I’m not sure why the Stoics claimed that the physics and ethics are inseparable but until someone actually presents an argument for why they are, it really doesn’t have any impact on one’s virtuous life. (I find it odd that people claim amor fati is impossible with todays science when Nietzsche literally made it up as a practical myth to follow and not a ontological truth)

I know in every single movement there’s always going to be the people who think the old stuff is true and newer stuff is artificial. So when Stoics see other Stoics trying to change the way Stoicism is by messing with the physics, tinkering a little bit with it, they’re going to feel like it’s destroying something important. Ironically though these same people admire the Cynics who totally avoided the physics and logic end of it and thought philosophy that was not lived was artificial. Why spend time talking about a conscious universe, when you could be living the noble life?

Let’s face it, virtue is the only good not because of what matter is doing or whether Plato’s universals exist or not. Virtue is the only good because Diogenes and Antisthenes and Socrates lived it and they were examples of how it was eudaimonic.

A painful contradiction one can find the Stoics making. On one hand the Stoic physics is integral to the ethics but on the other hand pre-Stoic philosophers like Socrates and Diogenes are claimed to be Sages. How is it that even possible given that they lacked the knowledge and wisdom to see how the Stoic physics were true? There is no evidence that Diogenes or Socrates ever talked about a pantheistic or a pandeistic God. It’s interesting that everyone misses this obvious contradiction. You can’t have a Sage that has certain knowledge of reality but then claim that Diogenes and Socrates were Sages when they didn’t have the same claim about reality that the Stoics claimed to have. Why is Epictetus looking up to Diogenes when Diogenes never demonstrated the sagacity to know that predicates were not universals (realism) but sets of particulars (nominalism)?

Anyway, I will reemphasize that I basically accept most of the tenets of Stoicism including the physics and logic. The Stoics are great when it comes to epistemology too. I’ve just noticed a big contradiction in people who love Cynicism but hate it when someone accidentally turns Stoicism into Cynicism by cutting out the physics. Yes Cynicism and Stoicism are different slightly in their ethics but cut off the physics and logic of the Stoics then you literally have Cynicism with preferred indifferents.

5 Reasons Stoicism Is Better than Murder Hornets

The Asian giant hornet (Vespa mandarinia), including the color form referred to as the “Japanese giant hornet”, is the world’s largest hornet.  It is also known as the murder hornet. Here are 5 reasons Stoicism is better than murder hornets.

  1. While the murder hornet lives in in East Asia, South Asia, Mainland Southeast Asia, parts of the Russia, and now the Northwest United States, it is has not travelled as far as Stoicism. There are now contemporary Stoics throughout the world who meet up in local groups or online. Also, Stoicism is not limited to low mountains and forests like murder hornets.
  2. The magnanimous Stoic Emperor Marcus Aurelius famously wrote “what is not good for the bee-hive is not good for the bee.” He never once mentioned murder hornets. Probably because they simply didn’t matter.
  3. Murder hornets can deliver a sting that can make you feel like you got hit by a truck. That kind of sting can sound intimidating. But the sting of pathos (suffering) is more powerful and has much greater longevity. It turns out that Stoicism can help us conquer the intense stings of our regrets and anxiety by changing our orientation towards eudaimonia (inner happiness) and away from hedone (outer happiness).
  4. Western honey bees have no defense against the murder hornets, which can quickly destroy their colonies. None of the tenets of Stoicism demand that bee hives are to be destroyed. That’s definitely a win for Stoicism and a win for bees.
  5. Murder hornets have many weaknesses that can easily be exploited. Murder hornets get locked into bee-hunting phase or bee-slaughter phase, and when this happens, they don’t counterattack, so it’s easy to kill them with flathead sticks. Stoicism, as a philosophy, doesn’t have any weaknesses. Stoicism is a completely coherent worldview with all of its essential tenets being true.