The Dichotomy of Control Isn't Stoicism

We've gotta switch to character-centric discussions over control-centric ones

Ryan Holiday was on television last week. Our foremost spokesperson (and I say that un-ironically and with no joy) was asked, in front of millions of viewers, what Stoicism was. I held my breath, would he finally say it was about the development of a good character? Was this the moment? Would Stoicism finally have an honest moment, and in front of all these people?

Of course not!

In case you don’t want to watch it, here’s his answer:

"…if I had to summarize it in one sentence, I would say it's this idea that we don't control what happens to us in life but we control how we respond to what happens in life."

I plunked my head onto the desk and wept 😭

No, not really, but I wanted to.

The dichotomy of control isn’t that Stoic

The DOC is pretty much Epictetus’ (a Roman Stoic who lived 300+ years after Stoicism’s founding) thesis, and it is a concept within Stoicism but it’s important to note two things:

1. It’s better understood not as “what I do and do not control” but as “what I do and do not have the power to choose” — and this phrasing matters because control and choice, while they can mean the same thing, communicate different tones. To have control is to have power, to be able to choose is to put the responsibility of self-reflection on ourselves. Control sounds entitled, choice sounds thoughtful. It’s also the case that the DOC is tied strongly to fate and what Epictetus is talking about when he talks about the DOC (which is our modern phrasing, by the way, not his) is fate and Stoic determinism.
   

2. There are far better one-offs in Stoicism to base your entire brand around. For example: good character.

If Ryan were out there talking about Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, and good character, he’d be enabling cold calculating Silicon Valley bros far less and he would be helping to bring about a net improvement of human character. If someone asks you what Stoicism is all about, your answer should only ever be anything other than “Virtue” or “building a good character” if you’re trying to sell something. Which Ryan, of course, is.

If Stoicism is ever to come out from under the shadow of accusations that we are, and I’m paraphrasing, “selfish, detached, cold, and indifferent assholes who think they’re clever but are really just Ayn Randian losers” we have got to stop all this talk of control and be more willing to talk about the basic point of Stoicism: developing a virtuous character. We’ve got to be willing to talk loudly and proudly about:

1. Virtue and Good Character

2. The Cosmopolis and the Circles of Concern

3. Role Ethics and our place in the Cosmopolis

There’s almost no reason, ever, to talk about the DOC outside of a therapeutic setting because of how shallowly people tend to discuss it. If you’re going to talk about the DOC you have to talk about fate or you’re basically just saying, “there are things we can control, and we should if we want to, and things we can’t, which we can just ignore because it doesn’t matter” — like we’re a bunch of Nihilistic doofuses out here.

Drop the DOC. Start talking more about Virtue and character.

Please, for the love of Zeus.

---

Photo by Cookie the Pom on Unsplash