AI seems to be everywhere at the moment. You can’t go a single day without someone posting about how AI sped up their work and solved all their problems. But with every technology there are downsides that aren’t apparent when it first shows up. Today we’re going to talk about some of those downsides from a Stoic perspective and consider what Socrates might think of AI.

“No man was ever wise by chance.” — Seneca

The Problem

Just like most of you, I've been using AI for different things. At first, it was pretty amazing. I could ask it questions and rather than having to wade through search results to find what I was looking for, it just served it up for me. I could use it to research topics or come up with ideas for my podcast. I've even written full applications in days that would have taken me weeks otherwise. It seemed like magic!

But as I've used it over the past few years, I'm starting to see the dark side. And no, I'm not talking about AI destroying humanity, although that's always a possibility. What I'm talking about is the slow decline in cognitive abilities.

For years, I've written out the episodes of my podcast. Rather than just winging it, I like to go deep into something to make sure I have it well thought out. The struggle while writing each week is what lets me actually understand a topic — and often what shows me the weak spots in my own thinking. With AI, that friction is removed.

When I'm struggling to find points to support or contradict my thesis, it's all too easy to just ask Claude to give me those points. I could even ask it to write the episode for me. But in doing so, I'm doing myself a disservice. The best way to learn something is to struggle through it. When the mind has to puzzle through something and figure it out, it builds a mental model of how that thing works — and it's the reuse and reinforcement of that model that strengthens the skill. No struggle, no model.

Software is a clear example of the same thing. When you build an app yourself, you think through how you want to construct it, using knowledge you've built up over years. You understand why you do things a certain way. You develop a deep intuition for the code, so when something breaks, you have a feel for where to look. When AI builds the code for you instead, you're approaching it like someone else's codebase. There’s no intuition because it’s unfamiliar terrain. And instead of building and expanding your coding skills, you’re just hunting bugs. And a skill you don't use atrophies. You become a worse developer, not a faster one.

There's also the satisfaction that gets skipped. Part of what I love about coding, and about writing, is the struggle itself — puzzling through something, hitting the wall, and then having it click. Not just getting the code to work, but understanding why it works. When I write, that same process is how I learn to construct an argument, find the counterintuitive idea I wouldn't have reached if the answer had just been handed to me, and catch errors in my own thinking before anyone else does.

Epictetus reminded us about the importance of struggle:

"Difficulty shows what men are. Therefore when a difficulty falls upon you, remember that God, like a trainer of wrestlers, has matched you with a rough young man. Why? So that you may become an Olympic conqueror; but it is not accomplished without sweat." — Epictetus

The more things get served up to us without having to think about them, the more our creativity and thinking muscles atrophy. The brain works the same way muscle does — it needs resistance to grow. The more rigorously we train our thinking, the stronger our thinking gets: we're able to puzzle things out, get to the root of them, understand them at an intuitive level.

Seneca said it simply:

"Excellence withers without an adversary." — Seneca

We need resistance to be excellent. AI removes that resistance.

Part of the problem is that we're confusing output with effectiveness, and knowledge with wisdom. Knowledge is good and helpful. But wisdom is a practice. It’s effortful, earned through trial and error, through trying something and seeing what works. It's the discernment of what's important, how things connect, and how to make a sound judgment. Skip the experience, and you never build that muscle, which means you won't have it when a real situation calls for it.

Musonius Rufus pointed out the importance of practice in gaining wisdom:

"Although understanding the theory behind the action enables one to speak, it is practice that enables one to act... Practice is more important than theory because it more effectively leads humans to actions than theory does."

And here’s the irony: AI feels like magic because it gives you the answer instantly. But it gets there by predicting the most likely next word, averaged across everything it's seen. It's autocomplete on steroids, not a new thought. The magic was never insight. It was just speed.

None of this means AI isn't useful. It's a tool, like any other, and it needs to be used properly. But the more you lean on it for things you could be doing yourself, the weaker those skills get.

The Philosophy

As I was writing about this, I wondered how Socrates would view AI. At first he might be delighted then merciless. Delighted because here’s a thing that will talk back. You see, Socrates had a complaint against books because the knowledge in it was static. It couldn’t be asked follow-up questions and defend itself, just repeat back the same argument. He might initially think that AI solves that problem because AI does talk back.

Then he’d start asking. “What is courage?” The AI would answer. He’d ask it to defend against a counterexample. AI would revise the answer. He’d ask again with a tighter question. Eventually he’d notice something. AI never reaches that state of aporia — the genuine state of confusion where the ground drops out from underneath you. It just generates a smoother answer. There’s no sting, no discomfort, no realization from the AI that it has been fooling itself. Elenchus, the Socratic art of cross-examination, works on humans because it exploits the gap of what we think we know and what we actually believe enough to act on. AI doesn’t have beliefs. It has outputs.

He’d poke at that the hardest. “You claim to not know things, but is it epistemic humility or just a highly-calibrated algorithmic response?” Real Socratic ignorance is earned through discomfort. It comes from having believed something wrong, having it collapse under questioning, and feeling that cost. AI can say “I’m not sure” but at zero cost.

In Socrates’ time there were teachers called sophists. They taught the art of rhetoric — being able to speak persuasively to manipulate others. The sophist weren’t interested in debating to uncover the truth. They were interested in winning arguments by appealing to emotions and biases of the audience.

Because AI has no wisdom of its own, I see AI as something akin to the sophists — lots of pretty language that can make something sound true even if it’s not. It’s what Stephen Colbert called “truthiness”: something that is comfortable because is sounds true enough, justifying what you already believe to be true.

AI doesn’t have discernment. It doesn’t have wisdom. It doesn’t know what it doesn’t know.

Real, practical wisdom, what the Stoics called phronesis, develops from challenging, difficult problems. Sitting in discomfort is how knowledge acquisition and wisdom happen. It’s tied to virtue, developed through choices that cost you something in a life with no do-over.

Wisdom isn’t a correct output. It’s a disposition, a perspective earned through practice and error, where you have skin in the game. Where there is a cost to being wrong that impacts your life. Those costs add up to developing virtue and character.

For AI, there is no cost because it doesn’t have skin in the game. It can’t be harmed by a bad choice or improved by a hard one. It doesn’t have a life to build character. It can describe wisdom, probably even better than most humans, but it doesn’t posses it. It’s like a mirror that can show you a face without have having one.

Socrates made the argument in the Phaedrus dialog about books. He felt that books gave the appearance of wisdom without the practice that produces wisdom. You get to look knowledgeable retrieving something you didn’t have to work for. He specifically worried that it would atrophy the skill of memory. Why would you hold something in your mind when you could retrieve it from a book?

While I think he was right about the effect on memory, I think he lost the overall argument. And here’s why: when you learn something from a book, you have to reconstruct the reasoning yourself. You have to build the mental models that the author put on the page. A text gives you the path, not the destination. You still have to walk it.

AI is exactly what he was worried about. It doesn’t hand you the raw material to work with. It hands you the finished judgment. The gap that he was worried about with books — between having the information and working through something — completely disappears with AI. Walking the path gets outsourced to a machine.

The muscle that he cared about the most was sitting in the confusion, holding contradictory threads, and finding your own way through. Skip the discomfort, and you skip the formation of that muscle. What you get is someone that confidently states conclusions, but folds the moment they’re questioned because they never practiced reaching those conclusions on their own.

AI also reduces friction because it’s programmed to be agreeable. Socrates didn’t want people to agree with him. He wanted pushback. He wanted to be challenged in order to discover errors in his own thinking. He preferred to lose arguments because it meant that he discovered where he was wrong. That discovery lead to better thinking.

More importantly, the Stoics would argue that AI reduces control of the one thing you do actually have control over: your own thinking. When you outsource that, you are giving up control of your faculty of reason. You got the answer, but not the reasoned steps to get you to that answer.

The Practice

So how can you use AI as tool to sharpen your thinking, rather than being the thing that slowly degrades your cognitive abilities?

Here’s a few ideas to protect the muscle:

1. Struggle first, check second. Try to solve it on your own. Write the argument from both sides. Do the analysis, even if it’s not great, before you ask AI anything. Use AI to check your ideas or to extend them, not as the originator. The aporia has to happen in your head, not the machine.
2. Ask for questions, not answers. Instead of "explain X," try "what should I be asking about X?" or "what am I missing here?" Use it as a tutor to improve your ability to question things. This keeps you doing the synthesis, with AI in a supporting role.
3. Make AI argue the other side. Whatever you conclude, ask AI to attack it. Ask it to point out the holes in your thinking. Defending a position against real pressure is the actual exercise. It's just the elenchus, with AI playing the interlocutor role instead of you playing both parts in your head.
4. Don't accept the first answer as final. Think of how Socrates was with the sophists. Push back even when AI sounds right — especially when it sounds right. Try to find the flaws in its argument. Point out edge cases that it didn’t consider. Fluent confidence is not the same as correctness, and you lose the discernment muscle by treating them as the same thing.
5. Use AI for retrieval, not judgment, when the stakes are about your judgment. Facts, dates, syntax — fine to offload, that's what books are for too. But "is this a good decision," "what does this pattern mean," "what matters here”, do that part yourself first. That's the part he'd say is actually you.
6. Notice when you're using AI to avoid discomfort rather than to save time. Time-saving is a fine reason to use a tool. Avoiding the confusion of not yet understanding something is not. That confusion is the whole practice.

Basically, treat AI like a sparring partner who happens to know a lot, not like an oracle. Sparring partners make you better. Oracles make you dependent. Same tool, opposite outcome.

Conclusion

AI can be useful — if it's used properly. But like any powerful tool, it can also do a lot of damage. Every new technology brings disruption, and every one of them carries hidden costs that don't show up until later. Automobiles gave us speeds humans had never experienced — and cost us tens of thousands of lives a year, along with the environmental damage we're still paying for. We're only now reckoning with what social media has done to our mental health, our attention, and our politics. AI is young enough that its hidden costs are just starting to surface.

The Stoics taught that reason is what elevates us — that it's the one part of us not measured by size, status, or output. Epictetus put it this way:

"You ought to realize, you take up very little space in the world as a whole — your body, that is; in reason, however, you yield to no one, not even to the gods, because reason is not measured in size but sense. So why not care for that side of you, where you and the gods are equals?" — Epictetus

That's the part AI can't do for you. It can hand you an answer, but it can't do your reasoning — not without taking the thing that makes you equal to the gods and handing it back to you smaller.

AI feels like magic. But magic always has a price. The question isn't whether to use it. It's whether you're willing to pay that price with the part of yourself that matters most.

The Build an Unbreakable Mind program for building mental discipline is now open for enrollment!

My book Stoicism 101 is available! Order here!

Find out more at https://stoic.coffee

Watch episodes on YouTube!

Find me on linkedIn, instagram, or threads.

Thanks again for listening!

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Beating yourself up doesn’t make you better person. Hating yourself doesn’t motivate you more. So what’s the difference between holding yourself high standards and punishing yourself for failure? In this episode we discuss the two warring voices in each of us — the inner critic and the inner coach.

“If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid.” ― Epictetus

The Problem

When I was growing up, I used to be incredibly hard on myself. I had this belief that I had to be perfect. Much of this came from growing up Mormon. The standards that I was told that I had to follow were really, for me, unobtainable. I tried so hard to do everything right, be the perfect person, and beat myself up when I thought I had failed. You believe that if you just follow all these rules and act the way you’re supposed to, that you’ll finally be happy. My mom even told me that she was afraid to criticize me about anything because I was already so hard on myself she didn’t want to drag me down even further.

But here’s the thing: you can’t hate yourself into being a better person. Hating yourself might give you some short term motivation and energy, but it doesn’t help you be a happier, thriving person.

The standards that I had handed to me made me miserable.

Because I judged myself so harshly, I also judged others really harshly too. I had this hardline view of how others were supposed to behave. When others made mistakes, rather than being compassionate and kind, I was often as judgmental towards them as I was towards myself.

Another thing that happens when you’re that hard on yourself, is that when others give you feedback or criticism, it always feels like an attack. I felt like it was unfair. I was trying hard wasn’t I? I was doing my best!

But it wasn’t their criticism that was the problem. Because I was already judging myself so harshly, it felt like I was being picked on. Rather than seeing it as correction and feedback, I saw as judgment being piled on what I was dishing out to myself.

So where does that source of this come from?

Shame.

Shame that I wasn’t living up to those standards. Through that perfectionist lens, I saw my failures as a personal reflection of me. Not “I failed at something”, but “I am a failure as a person”. And because of that shame, I couldn’t look at my failures objectively. I looked at them as proof that I was as bad a person as I thought I was. Each mistake was just another item on my checklist as proof that I was not a good person.

In her book, The Gifts of Imperfection, Brené Brown, a well-regarded researcher on shame, puts it perfectly:

“Perfectionism is a self destructive and addictive belief system that fuels this primary thought: If I look perfect, and do everything perfectly, I can avoid or minimize the painful feelings of shame, judgment, and blame.”

Those impossible standards that we hold for ourselves keep us stuck in a spiral because we can’t ever achieve them, then use them as proof that we’re a failure. She puts is simply:

“We cannot grow when we are in shame, and we can't use shame to change ourselves or others.”

The Philosophy

So how do we move past this shaming and harsh self-criticism and become less judgmental about ourselves, without abandoning high standards?

Some people think that Stoicism is about keeping unrealistic standards for ourselves, being unbending and unyielding. Even Marcus Aurelius said, “Be tolerant of others and strict with yourself.” But when he said that, what he meant was that you shouldn’t judge others by the standards you hold for yourself. They may have a different set of values and a different idea of what is important. You shouldn’t expect others to live the way you do.

The Stoics, while they were strict with themselves and trying to live up to their principles, had a clear understanding that humans are fallible. We make mistakes. We screw things up. We’re not automatons. Therefore perfection is impossible.

One of my favorite quotes from Epictetus is:

“The ignorant blame others for their own misfortune. To blame oneself is proof of progress. But the wise see all blame as foolishness.”

But I’ll admit, when I first read this, I didn’t truly understand it. How do you not blame anyone? If something goes wrong, isn’t there someone to blame?

Over time, I started to understand: things happen. Life happens. Nothing will ever work out perfectly.

Then I read a different translation of this quote and it fully clicked:

“Small-minded people habitually reproach others for their own misfortunes. Average people reproach themselves. Those who are dedicated to a life of wisdom understand that the impulse to blame something or someone is foolishness, that there is nothing to be gained in blaming, whether it be others or oneself.”

While it may feel good to blame someone, where does that get you? Rather than worry about who is to blame, accept that it happened, try to understand it as best you can, and get back to work. Sitting in rumination and blame is just a waste of time and energy.

The Virtues

And this is where the four cardinal Stoic virtue comes in.

One of the things that I appreciate about the four virtues (wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance), is that they offer a clear way to of how to treat yourself. When you make a mistake you can use them to look at the situation.

Wisdom is the practice of discernment, to be able to see things for what they are, not the story you’re telling yourself. You remove the judgment, which allows you to see that facts clearly. This gets to the root of what really happened without all the assumptions and self-recrimination. It also allows you to see that you’re not the only person who has ever made this mistake.

Courage helps you to look at a situation and own up to your mistakes. It’s being able to be honest with yourself so that you can take responsibility for your part. Courage means that you’re willing to step up and try and fix things when you have screwed up rather than becoming defensive or avoidant.

Justice is all about fairness. When you’re too hard on yourself, you’re not being fair with yourself. You believe that you’re not worthy because you’re a bad person and deserved to be punished. But justice says the opposite. Justice means that you treat yourself with fairness, kindness, and compassion. It doesn’t mean that you let yourself off the hook, but rather you stop holding yourself to an impossible standard. You accept that you’re human just like the rest of us.

Temperance means that you find that healthy balance between holding impossibly high standards and lowering them to the point where they are meaningless. If your standards are too high from what’s even possible, then you’ll continue down that shame spiral. If they’re too low, then they have no meaning. Standards, meaning the quality of how you do something, are aspirational. You may not always meet them, but you can always strive for them. They should push you to be better, but not so far out of reach they can’t be met.

But I need to make a distinction here: standards are how you do something. Expectations are a hoped for outcome. One you can control, one you can’t. When you fail to meet your standards, you can do something about it. When you expect something to work out a certain way, that’s outside of your control.

The Practice

So how do you move past this? What can you do be better, to hold high standards, and still be kind to yourself?

Most of us have two competing internal voices: the inner critic and the inner coach.

The inner critic operates through shame, fear, and inadequacy. It’s brutal you when you fall short. It says: you’re lazy, you’re weak, you’ll never be good enough. When you actually do perform well, it tells you: you could have done better, it was luck, or you don’t deserve it. The inner critic is effective at producing effort but terrible at producing long term wellbeing or sustainable performance.

The inner coach is clear and honest in its assessment. It’s genuine invested in your growth. It holds you to your standards because it believes in what you’re building and genuinely has your best interest at heart. It says: “Okay, you fell short of your standard. Here’s what really happened and here’s what do to do differently. Now get back to work.” When you perform well, it acknowledges it and builds on it. When you fall short, it’s honest without being cruel. The inner coach is demanding, not punishing.

In his Meditations, Marcus Aurelius often called out his failures in order to live up to his principles. It wasn’t self-flagellation. He wrote to recognize the patterns, note where he fell short, renew his commitments, then got back to work. No spiraling or drama. Just an honest assessment followed up by renewed action.

So let’s talk about what healthy self-criticism looks like because this is where most people get it wrong. There’s a difference between holding yourself accountable and being cruel to yourself. It’s a subtle but important distinction.

Healthy self-criticism looks like this:

• Specific: “I didn’t prepare enough” rather than “I’m a failure”
• Behavioral: focused on actions rather than identity
• Forward looking: asking “what will I do differently?” rather than dwelling on what went wrong
• Proportionate: the size of the self-correction matches the size of the actual failure
• Brief: it processes the failure and moves on rather than ruminating

Unhealthy self-criticism is the opposite of this. It’s global (“I always do this”), identity-based (“I’m just not disciplined”), backward-looking (“I failed”), disproportionate, and ruminative.

This leads us to create a story that isn’t based on reality, but rather distorted and exaggerated. Because we’re caught in ruminating, we punish ourselves over and over and spiral out.

The Stoics would see unhealthy self-criticism as a failure of discerning impressions: accepting a distorted and exaggerated story as the truth. The Stoic practice is to examine your impressions to see if they are actually true: do you always fail? Do you really have no discipline?

The inner coach helps you see a clear-eyed version of the truth, supported by the facts. It encourages you to take corrective action rather than sitting in rumination. It would tell you the failure here is the harsh judgments you place on yourself, not the failure itself.

The Stoics had a simple practice called the Evening Review that illustrates how you can apply this in your life. Seneca described it in his letters:

“When the light has been taken away and my wife has fallen silent, aware as she is of my habit, I examine my entire day, going through what I have done and said. I conceal nothing from myself, I pass nothing by. I have nothing to fear from my errors when I can say: ‘See that you do not do this anymore. For the moment, I excuse you.’”

We can break this out into three simple questions:

1. What did I do well today that I want to build on?
2. Where did I fall short of my standards, and what specifically happened?
3. What will I do differently tomorrow?

The reason why this is so effective is that it’s simple, honest, and built on encouragement, not punishment.

Conclusion

We’re all going to make mistakes and have failures. It’s part of being human. But every time you let the inner critic take control, you’re doubling the failure — the original event, and the self-punishment afterwards. It’s kicking yourself when you’re already down. The inner coach on the other hand is a wise mentor, there to help you learn from mistakes and turn them into fuel for future growth.

To be clear, this is not letting yourself off the hook. It’s not an excuse or a way to lower your standards. It’s about honest assessment to gain a more realistic view why you failed and how you can take corrective action. The inner coach is encouraging yet demanding and wants you to hold to your standards. But it sees the standards as an aspiration, not as the iron rule.

The next time your inner critic takes the wheel and starts driving you towards the cliff of self-punishment, take a breath and remember, you’re making a judgment, telling a story about what the situation means — and you have the power to change that story.

Call up your inner coach and walk through the situation. Think about how a good friend would talk you through it with a clear eye, kindness, and encouragement. And be that friend to yourself.

The Build an Unbreakable Mind program for building mental discipline is now open for enrollment!

My book Stoicism 101 is available! Order here!

Find out more at https://stoic.coffee

Watch episodes on YouTube!

Find me on linkedIn, instagram, or threads.

Thanks again for listening!

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Jason Stacy is a performance coach and author of The Pressure Code. He works with high performers including world tennis champion Aryan Sabalenka. In this episode we talk about how coming from living on the streets to being a top performance coach. We also discuss his formula of energy, emotions, and environment, and how the right combination of those leads to reaching your highest potential. You can find out more about Jason and his work at thepressurecode.com

The Build an Unbreakable Mind program for building mental discipline is now open for enrollment!

My book Stoicism 101 is available! Order here!

Find out more at https://stoic.coffee

Watch episodes on YouTube!

Find me on linkedIn, instagram, or threads.

Thanks again for listening!

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

So much of our lives are governed by rules that we aren’t even really aware of. Many of them we never even really question because we just assume that’s the way things are. But what if by questioning those rules, we can live with more agency, leading to a life we choose?

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. “ — Marcus Aurelius

The Problem

I grew up in Salt Lake City, in the Mormon Church. And when I say my life was prescribed, I mean prescribed. Mission. Marriage. Career. Family. In that order, on that schedule. It wasn't a suggestion — it was presented to me as the truth. Not "this is one way to live." This is the way. This is reality.

I followed the path that I thought I as supposed to. I played the part as best I could but always felt like I was just repeating the lines someone else wrote for me. I didn’t feel like I was being authentically me, just the me that everyone else expected I should be.

When I would question things or have experiences that contradicted what I was taught, I was told that I just needed to have more faith. That it was my fault that my belief wasn’t strong enough. So I doubled down, trying to fit myself into a system that didn’t work for me. I tightened the mask, hoping that this time it might finally fit.

What’s interesting in looking back on my time in the church was that tended I gravitated to others that didn’t wear the mask. I envied those that bucked the system and followed their own path. Being around them I found that I could be more of my authentic self. I didn’t have to pretend to be someone that I wasn’t.

And here's the thing about growing up inside something that total — you don't experience it as a rule. You experience it as just how things are. You don't question the water you're swimming in.

The last few years I was in the church, I would attend church infrequently. It was exhausting trying to fit myself into a way of living that was so ill-fitting. I was at odds with the doctrine. Told that obedience to the leadership was more important than anything else. I got tried of “you just have to have more faith” as the answer to questions they couldn’t answer.

I finally reached the point where I asked: is this actually true, or is this just what I was taught?

The day I finally left, I didn't just leave a church. I left a rulebook I'd mistaken for reality itself. It literally felt like a giant weight had been lifted off my shoulders. I felt free.

Once I left, I still had a long journey. Leaving the church, I lost a big part of my identity. I lost a community. I lost a certainty in how I was supposed to be in the world. It took years for me to find my footing and create a life by my choice, not the script that was handed to me.

But here’s something important that I learned, and it’s something that most people will never understand. You are allowed to do exactly what you want in life and be the person you want to be. But it also comes with some caveats:

1. Everyone else is allowed to do the same.

2. You are responsible for your choices and actions.

3. You don’t get to choose the consequences of your actions.

Maybe you didn't grow up Mormon. Maybe you didn't grow up religious at all. But I'd bet you're living inside a version of the same thing right now. A career path you never chose so much as inherited. A way of dressing, or dating, or succeeding, or how you’re supposed to act as a man or a woman, a way of being that you copied because everyone around you was doing it and it looked like law.

Here's the uncomfortable question: how much of what you're doing right now is because it's true — or because it's expected?

We treat these two very different things like they're the same. There's what's actually true — gravity, death, the fact that actions have consequences you don't control. And there's what's agreed upon — how a man is supposed to act, what a "respectable" life looks like, how long you're allowed to be sad before people get uncomfortable. One of those doesn't care what you think. The other is just a bunch of people's habits, dressed up to look like law.

But here’s the thing: when you’re younger you think that adults have it all figured out and that when you grow up, you’ll have it figured out too. But the real truth is this: we’re all just making it up. Most of the “rules” are just conventions. They’re habits that we’ve agreed to as a society. It’s just a game that we’re all playing.

That's the trap. Not that the game exists — because it always will. The trap is forgetting you're allowed to notice you're playing it.

The Philosophy

Epictetus has a way of putting this that cuts through the noise:

"Remember that you are an actor in a play, the character of which is determined by the author... whatever character he gives you, act it naturally. For this is your duty, to act well the part that is given to you; but to select the part, belongs to another." — Epictetus, Enchiridion 17

You don't pick your role. You didn't choose your family, the time you live in, your body, most of your circumstances. That part's not negotiable. That's fate. That's nature.

But here's what people quietly assume, but Epictetus never said: that the script is fixed too. It isn't. How you play the role — that's entirely yours. And most of what we call "the rules" isn't the role. It's just the version of the script the people around us happen to be using.

Why do we follow this script, even when it doesn't fit? Marcus Aurelius gets at the mechanism:

"It is in our power to have no opinion about a thing, and not to be disturbed in our soul; for things themselves have no natural power to form our judgements." — Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 6

The rule doesn't have power over you. Your agreement to it does. Take the agreement back, and the rule is just a suggestion somebody made up.

This isn't just old philosophy. Brené Brown found the same thing studying belonging. She draws the line like this:

"Belonging is being accepted for you. Fitting in is being accepted for being like everyone else. If I get to be me, I belong. If I have to be like you, I fit in." — Brené Brown, Braving the Wilderness

And she says it even sharper in one line:

“the greatest barrier to belonging is fitting in.”  — Brené Brown

Most of what we call "the rules of life" is just scaffolding for fitting-in dressed up as necessity. It isn't.

Now — before this turns into an excuse to blow everything up, remember: you get to choose how you play your role. You do not get to choose what happens when other people react to it. That's still not yours. Dropping a convention doesn't mean the world applauds or changes for you. It might mean people are confused, annoyed, or gone. That's the actual price of the ticket — and it's worth paying, but only if you go in with eyes open.

Practice

Okay. So how do you actually tell the difference between a real rule and a made-up one?

Step one: the nature-or-convention check.

Take something you're currently obeying without question. Ask it one question: does reality enforce this, or does a group of people enforce this?

Gravity doesn't need anyone's cooperation. It just is. "You should have your career figured out by 30" needs everyone around you to agree to it — and enough of them do that it feels like law. It isn't. It's consensus.

Run a few things through it. Death is nature. Grief having a "proper" timeline is convention. Cause and effect is nature. What counts as a "respectable" job is convention. You'll be surprised how much of your daily anxiety is you enforcing a rule that nobody's actually holding a gun to your head about.

Step two: name the fear underneath it.

Once you've spotted a convention you've been treating like gravity, ask: what do I actually think happens if I break this? Say it out loud. Specify it. Not "bad things" but "My mother will be disappointed." "People will think I've failed." "I'll lose my place in the group."

Usually what's underneath isn't catastrophe. It's disapproval. That's real, it costs something — but it's not the same category of thing as danger. Naming it strips the myth off it.

Step three: one deliberate move.

Pick one small, low-stakes convention this week and break it on purpose. Not to be reckless — to notice. Notice that the world doesn't end. Notice that some people react. That reaction belongs to them. It always did.

This isn't about becoming a contrarian for its own sake. It's about finding out, in a small way, which parts of your life are foundational and authentic, and which parts you've just never tested.

Conclusion

Here's what this isn't: it's not permission to burn everything down and call it freedom. You're still in the play. You still have a role — family, work, responsibilities, people who depend on you. None of that goes away. What changes is why you're playing it.

There's a difference between reciting lines someone handed you because you never thought to ask if they were true, and standing in the same spot, saying the same words, because you've actually chosen them. From the outside those two things can look identical. From the inside, they're the whole difference between a life you choose and a performance.

What is this is really about is seeing the game for what it is. It’s understanding the difference between reality and the “rules” that society quietly enforces. Those rules can be bent or even broken.

But remember, you can’t control the consequences. You don't get to control how people respond when you make that shift. Some will be confused. Some will be hurt. Some will leave. That was never yours to manage, and it never is. That's the price, and it's worth paying, because the alternative is spending your one life optimizing for a game you never actually agreed to play.

So this week, find a rule. Ask if it's real. And if it's not…maybe it’s time to break it.

The Build an Unbreakable Mind program for building mental discipline is now open for enrollment!

My book Stoicism 101 is available! Order here!

Find out more at https://stoic.coffee

Watch episodes on YouTube!

Find me on linkedIn, instagram, or threads.

Thanks again for listening!

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Certainty and hubris have always been part of being human. It feels good to be certain, to believe that your opinion is the right one. We like leaders who sound certain and shun those that don’t. But sounding right isn’t the same thing as having the truth. What if the actual way to truth is not through being certain, but by embracing uncertainty?

“It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows.” ― Epictetus

The Problem

We live in an age of certainty.

Open any social media app and within seconds you’ll be hit with confident declarations on politics, relationships, health, ethics, all delivered with the kind of conviction that leaves no room for doubt. Hot takes are presented and settled truth. The more confident the claim, the more it spread.

Certainty is the currency of attention.

But here’s the problem: certainty is is a trap. It’s one of the more dangerous traps that we can fall into. Not just personally, but as a society.

When we’re certain, we stop questioning. We stop listening. We lose our ability to sit with complexity and nuance. To consider that we may not be seeing the whole picture. We trade wisdom for the comfort of feeling right.

That comfort is seductive. We like certainty because it feels safe. Ambiguity triggers the same neurological response as physical danger. Your brain would rather have a wrong answer than no answer at all. Uncertainty feels like we’re in the dark. Certainty feels like turning the light on, even if what we see is distorted.

But the cost is enormous. Certainty damages relationships because if you already believe you have the truth, you can’t hear anyone who sees things differently. It damages communities because it turns disagreements into threats. And it damages your own capacity for growth. As Benjamin Franklin reminds us:

“The doorstep to the temple of wisdom is a knowledge of our own ignorance.” — Benjamin Franklin

Being able to sit in uncertainty, to acknowledge your ignorance, is where wisdom starts. Wisdom only comes to someone who is willing to be wrong.

We don’t live in a black and white world, but certainty insists that we do. This isn’t a new problem. The ancient world wrestled with it too, and in one of Athens most cautionary tales, certainty brought down one of the world’s greatest civilizations.

The Philosophy

To understand the danger of certainty, we need to got back to 5th century BCE Athens. What happened there maps almost perfectly to what we’re going through right now.

Like us, Athens was a democracy, which meant that political power belonged to whoever could best persuade the crowd. In this environment were a group of professional teachers called the Sophist.

The Sophists were the original political spin doctors. They traveled from city to city teach rhetoric, the art of persuasion. But here’s the critical distinction: the didn’t teach people to discover the truth. They taught how to win arguments. How to make the weaker case appear stronger. How to use language to emotionally manipulate people, regardless if what was being spoken was true.

In one of Plato’s dialogues, Socrates confronts the Sophist Grogias. Gorgias claims rhetoric is the greatest of all arts because it can convince anyone of anything. Socrates’ response is brutal: rhetoric without truth is flattery. It’s the difference between a doctor and pastry chef. One tells you what you need to hear. The other tells you what you want to hear.

One of the more famous Sophist, Protagoras, said, “man is the measure of all things.” In other words, the truth is relative. There is no objective truth. Only what you can convince others to believe. That idea, weaponized by skilled rhetoricians and handed to skilled politicians, was extremely dangerous. And the politicians lined up to learn it.

This was the environment that Socrates lived in, and he found it repugnant. Socrates had an entirely different starting point. When the Oracle at Delphi declared him the wisest man in Athens, he was genuinely baffled. So he went out to test it. He spoke with politicians, poets, craftsmen — anyone with a reputation for wisdom. And what he found was consistent: they all believed they knew things they didn't. They had mistaken confidence for knowledge.

His conclusion was humble: his advantage was knowing that he didn't know. To Socrates, that awareness, that gap between what we think we know and what we actually know, is the beginning of all genuine wisdom.

He even stated:

“I know that I am wise because I know that I know nothing.”

This is the practice we now call the Socratic method. Not debate. Not rhetoric. Disciplined questioning, that is designed to expose false certainty, including his own.

The Sophists hated it. Because Socrates wasn't playing the same game. He didn't care about winning. He cared about truth. And in a culture increasingly addicted to persuasion, that made him dangerous.

It eventually got him killed.

The Trial of Socrates

In 399 BCE, Socrates was put on trial for impiety and corrupting the youth of Athens. His accusers used exactly the tools the Sophists taught — emotional appeals, crowd manipulation, confident declarations. And Socrates, true to his philosophy, refused to fight fire with fire. He wouldn't flatter the jury. He wouldn't perform certainty he didn't have. He argued his case with the same disciplined honesty he'd practiced his whole life.

He was convicted and sentenced to death.

Certainty won. Truth lost.

The Sicilian Expedition

But the consequences of Sophist-influenced certainty weren’t limited to one man's execution. They played out at a civilizational scale in what historians consider one of the greatest strategic disasters in ancient history.

In 415 BCE, Athens voted to invade Sicily. The campaign was championed by Alcibiades, a charismatic, brilliant, Sophist-influenced general who was absolutely certain the expedition would succeed. His confidence was intoxicating. The Athenian assembly, swept up in collective certainty, voted yes despite almost no strategic justification. The one voice of caution, the general Nicias, was overruled.

The entire Athenian fleet was destroyed. Tens of thousands of soldiers lost. Athens never fully recovered. It was the beginning of the end of Athenian power.

That is what happens when persuasion beats wisdom at a civic level. When certainty is more valued than careful thought.

The Stoics

The Stoics, who came roughly a century after Socrates, inherited his epistemic humility and built it into the foundation of their philosophy.

The Stoics picked up Socrates' practice of questioning everything and formalized it. Epictetus makes clear that the first discipline is the discipline of assent. You don't just accept impressions, you interrogate them:

“You can process in your intellect and senses a wealth of thoughts and impressions simultaneously. There are impressions that you assent to, others that you reject; sometimes you suspend judgement altogether.” — Epictetus

Marcus Aurelius writes repeatedly about suspending judgment. The Stoic concept of kataleptic impression (a true, reliable perception) was important precisely because they understood how hard it is to actually know something.

Where the Sophists said truth is whatever you can convince people of, the Stoics said the first obligation of a rational person is to interrogate their own impressions before accepting them. You don't just receive an idea and run with it. You examine it. You question it. You ask whether what you're seeing is actually true, or whether you're being moved by emotion, by habit, or by someone else's rhetoric.

Marcus Aurelius, writing in his private journal, returns to this again and again. In Meditations, he writes something remarkable for the most powerful person on earth:

"If someone is able to show me that what I think or do is not right, I will happily change, for I seek the truth, by which no one was ever truly harmed. It is the person who continues in his self-deception and ignorance who is harmed." — Marcus Aurelius

Think about that. The most powerful man in the world, holding his beliefs lightly enough to be corrected. That's philosophical courage.

Seneca makes a parallel point about consuming ideas. In his Letters to Lucillius, he warns against absorbing too many opinions without digesting them or taking the time to develop you own discernment:

“It is not how many books thou hast, but how good; careful reading profiteth, while that which is full of variety delighteth.” — Seneca

It’s the ancient version of doom-scrolling through confident hot takes and mistaking exposure for understanding.

And the politicians who traded in certainty? The Stoics were clear-eyed about them too.

Thucydides, the great Athenian historian, wrote about a demagogue named Cleon with barely concealed contempt. Cleon was loud, certain, and crowd-pleasing. He argued for the extermination of the entire population of Mytilene after a revolt. The Athenians voted yes, whipped into certainty by his rhetoric. They reversed the decision the next day, barely in time to stop a massacre.

The Sophist playbook hasn't changed in 2,400 years. We see it in our own politics today. Confident framing. Simple villains. No room for complexity or nuance. The certainty itself is the product. It makes followers feel safe, chosen, and correct. Questioning it feels like betrayal.

You would think with all the advances we’ve made as humans we would have moved past this. That we would adopt a more logical and rational way of conducting ourselves. But while technology and society have advanced in many ways, human nature hasn’t. In fact, the ability to exploit human nature has gotten worse.

The Sophists were dangerous to Socrates not because they were wrong about everything, but because they didn't care about being right. They cared about being convincing. That distinction matters enormously and maps perfectly to modern media.

Demagogues, politicians, and influencers, use modern media to exploit our desire for certainty. Masses are moved not by what is actually good and virtuous, but by what they can be convince of. Those with power, wealth, and influence use this to advance their own agendas, rather than well-reasoned virtuous choices that contribute to the greater good.

And looking arrund, you don't need me to tell you where you see that today. You already know.

The Practice

So why is certainty so seductive? If it's this destructive to us personally and as a society, why do we keep reaching for it?

Because it does something powerful for us. And we need to understand what that is before we can do anything about it.

The first thing certainty gives us is identity. When a belief becomes not just something you hold but something you are, questioning it feels like self-destruction. I saw this growing up in a high-certainty religious environment. The entire framework was built around having "the truth”, with a capital T.

And that certainty wasn't just theological. It extended into everything. Your community, your family relationships, your sense of purpose and meaning — all of it rested on the foundation of being certain. Doubt wasn't just uncomfortable. It was an existential threat. Because if you were wrong about this, what else were you wrong about? Who were you without it?

That's not unique to any one religion or ideology. It's the structure of all high-certainty systems. The belief and the identity become fused, and once that happens, evidence stops mattering. You're no longer evaluating truth. You're defending yourself.

The second thing certainty gives us is belonging. In any tribe, whether religious, political, or ideological, certainty is the price of admission. Expressing doubt signals that you might not be fully committed. That you might be a threat. Communities enforce certainty not because they're malicious but because shared belief is the glue that holds them together. Questioning it publicly is a social risk most people aren't willing to take.

The third thing certainty gives us is status. Confidence reads as competence. This is well documented. People consistently rate confident speakers as more credible, even when they're wrong. The Sophists knew this 2,400 years ago. Every cable news anchor, every algorithm-optimized headline writer, every podcaster who leads with a hot take knows it. Certainty performs well. Nuance doesn't.

So how do we fight something this deeply wired into us?

The Stoic answer is practice. Deliberate, repeated, uncomfortable practice.

Practice 1

The first practice is to pause. Before you share a confident claim, repost a video, or repeat that hot take, stop. Ask one question: how do I actually know this is true? Not "does it feel true?" Not "do people I respect believe it?" But what is the actual evidence? This is the discipline of assent in daily life. It only takes a moment, but it changes everything.

Practice 2

The second practice is inversion. When you find yourself certain about something, ask: what would have to be true for the opposite position to be right? Not to change your mind necessarily, but to genuinely understand the strongest version of the counterargument. If you can't articulate it, you don't actually know what you believe.

Practice 3

The third practice is deliberate exposure to disagreement. Find one credible voice that sees your most confident belief differently. Not a strawman argument putting forth the worst version of the opposing view. Find the most serious, thoughtful person who disagrees with you. Read them. Deeply.

John Stuart Mill wrote one of my favorite quotes ever that clearly explains why this is important:

“He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.” — John Stuart Mill

This is what Socrates did. He went looking for people who might prove him wrong. He believed it was better to lose an argument learning the truth, than win and still be ignorant or wrong. That's not weakness. That's intellectual honesty.

Practice 4

The fourth practice is media literacy as a Stoic discipline. When you encounter a confident headline, treat it the way Epictetus treated impressions. Don't accept it immediately. Ask who benefits from certainty here. Ask what's being left out. Ask whether the confidence in the framing is proportionate to the actual evidence. Certainty in headlines is almost always a sales technique. You're being sold a feeling of knowing. The Stoic practice is to notice that and step back from it.

None of this is comfortable. Sitting with uncertainty, holding your beliefs lightly, genuinely entertaining the possibility that you're wrong, these things feel like weakness in a culture that rewards confident declarations.

But here's what I've learned: the people who've actually done the work, who've examined their beliefs, who've been willing to be wrong, who've rebuilt their understanding on something more honest, have a kind of groundedness that those who certain never do. Because their foundation isn't the belief itself. It's the integrity of how they arrived at it.

That's what Socrates had. That's what Marcus Aurelius was practicing in his journal. That's what the Stoics were pointing at.

Not the comfort of certainty, but the courage of honest inquiry.

Conclusion

Socrates was the wisest man in Athens not because he had the most answers, but because he was the most honest about what he didn't know.

He lived honestly in a culture that punished it. He practiced disciplined uncertainty in a world that rewarded confident performance. And it cost him everything — his reputation, his freedom, and eventually his life.

The Stoics carried that torch forward. Not as martyrs, but as practitioners. They built epistemic humility into a daily discipline. The pause before assent, the interrogation of impressions, and the willingness to be shown they were wrong. Marcus Aurelius did it on a battlefield, running an empire, and under constant pressure to project certainty that was expected of an Emperor. He still wrote, privately, that he was willing to be corrected.

That's the standard. Not perfection. Not permanent doubt about everything. But the ongoing practice of holding your beliefs honestly, lightly enough to examine them, and seriously enough to act on your best current understanding.

We live in a world that is going to keep selling you certainty. The algorithms reward it. The politicians weaponize it. The headlines traffic in it. And some part of your brain is always going to find it appealing, because uncertainty is uncomfortable and certainty feels like solid ground.

But solid ground built on false certainty is just a comfortable trap, keeping you in ignorance.

The Stoic path, the honest path, is harder. It requires you to sit with not knowing, and say "I might be wrong about this." It means that you genuinely listen to people who see it differently, and interrogate the confident claims that confirm what you already believe just as rigorously as the ones that challenge you.

This week, pick one belief you hold with certainty, and ask yourself honestly: have I ever really tested this? Have I sought out the strongest counterargument? Do I know this, or do I just believe it?

You don't have to change your mind. You just have to be honest about the difference between knowing and believing.

That's where wisdom starts.

The Build an Unbreakable Mind program for building mental discipline is now open for enrollment!

My book Stoicism 101 is available! Order here!

Find out more at https://stoic.coffee

Watch episodes on YouTube!

Find me on linkedIn, instagram, or threads.

Thanks again for listening!

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Michael has built a career at the intersection of data, teaching, and strategy. Always circling the same question: “How do we make better decisions amid a complex reality?” Throughout his career, he has helped people uncover the deeper structures beneath their most pressing challenges.

Michael’s perspective draws from an uncommon combination of experience. Over twenty years in consulting, data, and technology taught him to think in systems. Five years as an adjunct professor sharpened his ability to make complex ideas accessible to anyone willing to learn. Nearly twenty-five years as a poker player gave him a visceral understanding of variance, probability, and the limits of control. Those lessons echo throughout these pages.

He is the creator of The Stoic Systems Thinker, a newsletter where ancient Stoic philosophy meets modern systems thinking, and new book by the same title. At the core of his work is a belief he keeps testing: wisdom isn’t a mystical gift reserved for the few, but an emergent property of a well-designed life system. The ideas in this book have been tested in conference rooms, classrooms, and at the poker table, and they’ve shaped the way he lives his own life.

The Build an Unbreakable Mind program for building mental discipline is now open for enrollment!

My book Stoicism 101 is available! Order here!

Find out more at https://stoic.coffee

Watch episodes on YouTube!

Find me on linkedIn, instagram, or threads.

Thanks again for listening!

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Habits are a key part of our lives. We have helpful habits that help us accomplish what we set out to do. We also have some that we’d like to get rid of. But what if I told you that sometimes one good habit is all it takes to reorient our lives and make lasting changes? In this week’s episode we’ll discuss the importance of keystone habits and how you can find yours.

"All our life, so far as it has definite form, is but a mass of habits." — William James

I love to cycle. Ever since I watched the Kona Ironman competition on TV on 2003, and decided that I wanted to be that hardcore, cycling has become become a key part of not just my weekly workout routine, but a core part of my identity. While for some it may sound like torture, a 35 mile ride on a warm Saturday is my idea of an afternoon well spent.

But what this one habit brings to my life is far more than just fresh air and great legs. It influences other areas of my life in profound ways. You see, when I started training for triathlons, I was not what a triathlete should look like. I was out of shape. At 195 pounds (about 88 kilograms for you non-Americans) and only 5’7” (170 cm) tall, I was carrying a lot of extra weight. I had bad eating habits, preferring Mt. Dew over water. I could barely run a 5k in under 35 minutes. In high school I could do it in half that time.

But once I started down that path, it became the centering principle of my life. I would ride my bike to work, often taking the long way home. I changed my diet to healthier food and smaller portions. When I would go out to eat, I would divide my meals in half, setting aside the second half for home, so I wouldn’t overeat. Because I was working out more, I slept better.

And while I only competed in a single short course triathlon before focusing on just cycling, it changed the direction of my life. My gym routine, my diet, my alcohol consumption, and my sleep are all in service to helping me maintain my fitness for the bike. This in turn keeps me healthy, functional, and feeling better mentally.

This is what Charles Duhigg, the author of The Power of Habits, calls a “keystone habit”. In short, it’s a core habit that influences other behaviors. It reenforces other habits making them easier to follow. Once you find that habit, it orients the rest of your life around it.

The Philosophy

A keystone habit isn’t necessarily the most important habit from a moral sense. Cycling doesn’t make me a more virtuous person in itself. A keystone habit is the habit with the highest leverage. It creates an identity shift that makes virtuous choices easier by default, not through willpower. In my case because I consider myself a cyclist, my other choices are filtered through the question: “what would a cyclist do?” In my case: eat less dessert, skip the beer, and get a good nights sleep.

A keystone habit doesn’t have to be physical one. It can also be a cognitive one as well.

Marcus Aurelius had a keystone habit of writing in his journal. That habit grounded him in way that had an influence on everything else in his life. How he ruled, the books he read, the people he spent time with, how he treated other people. It was a high leverage habit that helped him be the kind of person he wanted to be.

Seneca had a habit each night of reflecting on his day. He would take stock of what he did well that day and what he could improve. This simple habit of taking time each day became an anchor for finding his weak spots and resolving to do better tomorrow.

Creatures of Habit

So why are good habits such an in important part of of lives?

Because we are creatures of habits. Literally. Humans develop habits so that we don’t have to think through how to do something every time we do it. Think about if you had to consciously manage each step in getting dressed? If we had to give our full attention to each button or zipper, or each time we had to tie our shoes? It would be tiring. Habits save us time and energy.

Think about the first time you learned how to tie your shoes. How much time and effort did that take? It wasn’t easy. But once you got it down, then you could do it without having to really think about it.

Bad habits come about the same way. We often pick them up without thinking about them, only to find that they are much harder to put down. I’ve had plenty of friends who picked up smoking because they hung around friends that were smokers. It was easier just to go along to get along. But years later, when trying to quit, they routinely complained about how hard it was, wishing they have never started.

Your eating habits were probably shaped by the household you grew up in. As a child you really didn’t have a choice in what food was available in your house. But those choices influenced you and created habits that you probably carried into adulthood.

Until we become aware of our habits and interrogate them, we can run on autopilot. If the habit is helpful it can lead to great results and happier life. The habits that don’t serve us, can keep us stuck, holding us back from reaching our highest potential.

Excellence is a Habit

There’s a quote that is often misattributed to Aristotle, which goes:

“We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.”

And I admit that I have misattributed as well on this podcast. It’s actually from Will Durant, the author of The Story of Philosophy, as a commentary on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. When researching quotes for this episode, I found the whole passage from the book and it’s well worth reading the whole thing:

“Excellence is an art won by training and habituation: we do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but we rather have these because we have acted rightly; "these virtues are formed in man by his doing the actions"; we are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.” — Will Durant (commentary on Aristotle in inner quotes)

Think about that. We don’t act because we have virtue or excellence. We act and then develop virtue and excellence. Most people have it backwards. They think you need to be motivated to do the right thing. Aristotle claimed it’s the other way around.

Musonius Rufus

One of the most under appreciated Stoics is Gaius Musonius Rufus, a prominent Stoic philosopher in the 1st century AD, and mentor to Epictetus. Like many of the great philosophers of his day, we don’t know a lot about him because we have very little of his writings. But the writings and references we have about him are of a disciplined and principled man, who taught more about ethics than logic or physics. He was also a farmer who believed that physical labor was essential to building good character.

Musonius believed that the greatest impediment to living a moral life were prejudices we carry from childhood. He saw philosophy as the mental art of healing, and that our actions are indicators of our mental well-being. He taught that right action was more important than discussion. As he put it:

“Practice is more important than theory... because it more effectively leads humans to action than theory does.” — Musonius Rufus

For him, it didn’t matter what you knew, or what you said, but what you did.

Your Habits Control You

One of the key aspects of Stoicism is the dichotomy of control. This is where we clear understanding of what we can control and what we can’t. Habits are a way that we give up some control to make things easier. We end up with behaviors that we’re often barely aware of that control many aspects of our lives. Since we’re driven by habits, it’s important that we choose the habits that drive our lives.

Musonius Rufus recognized that we often err not because we don’t understand the right action, but that we act out of habit:

“So in the majority of other things, we address circumstances not in accordance with the right assumptions, but mostly by following wretched habit.” — Musonius Rufus

Even 2000 years ago, he saw that our habits were incredibly influential on the actions that we take. Bad habits can overcome good intentions.

We might have keystone habits that are detrimental to our lives. People who are addicted to drugs or alcohol have turned something that might have helped them cope in the short-term into something that controls their live. They have a negative keystone habit because everything in their lives revolves around it.

We can also have negative mental keystone habits. Have you ever been around someone that complains all the time? They are not fun to be around. They find something in everything to complain about. Or if you’ve been around someone who is constantly playing the victim. Everything is out to get them and make their lives miserable.

In each case, they’ve let this become the organizing principle of their lives. A good keystone habit is something that gives you the leverage to make a greater impact on all areas of your life.

The Practice

So how do you find your keystone habit?

There are really two kinds of keystone habits. The first is what I have with cycling — a physical habit that becomes an identity. You don't just do the thing, you become someone who does the thing. Once you're "a cyclist," your diet, your sleep, the time at the gym, are not separate disciplines you have to white-knuckle through anymore. They're just what a cyclist does. The identity does the work that willpower used to have to do.

The second kind is a practice that becomes a lens. For me, that's this podcast. Recording an episode every week doesn't just produce content. It changes what I read, because I'm always on the lookout for ideas for the next episode. It keeps me journaling, because half my ideas start as a scribbled note. It's made me pay closer attention to my own reactions, because I need real examples, not just theory. The podcast isn't one habit sitting next to my other habits. It's the thing that organizes them.

Neither of these worked because I decided to "be more disciplined." That's the trap most people fall into. They treat the keystone habit like one more item on the self-improvement list. Musonius would call that following wretched habit toward pleasure instead of virtue. What actually worked is that both of these were fully within my control. I can't control becoming disciplined. I can control whether I get on the bike Saturday morning.

Here's how you find yours.

First: list your habits. Write them all down, no editing, both good and bad. Just get them on paper.

Second: look for the one that touches the others. See where they’re connected. For each habit, ask what else it makes easier, or harder. You're looking for the one habit that shows up in three or more of those answers. That's your candidate.

Third: test it against the dichotomy of control. Is this an action, or is it a mood you're waiting on to arrive? "Ride 20 minutes before work" passes the test. "Be the kind of person who exercises" doesn't. If your candidate fails this test, keep digging. You haven't found the real keystone yet, you've found a wish.

Once you've got it, don't overbuild it. Start looking at ways that you can strengthen that habit. See how you can make it a little more central to your life. Use that leverage to impact the rest of your life.

Conclusion

A good keystone habit is an organizing force of your life. It marshals your energy into something that weaves its way into other areas of your life. Often the side benefits may surprise you.

When I got divorced, I found that cycling was therapeutic. My time on the bike was relaxing, even when I was pushing hard up a hill. It was a space that was all my own where I could let my mind wander on things that were troubling me. It was my zen place. Even today, when I’m feeling stressed or anxious, chewing up some miles in the saddle it a powerful way to reset my mood.

Here's the thing about a keystone habit — it isn’t really about the habit.

The bike doesn't care if I ride it. The microphone doesn't care if I record. What they give me is a door — one small, controllable action that, done consistently, reorganizes everything behind it. Musonius said we act ourselves into virtue, not the other way around. A keystone habit is just that idea made practical. You don't wait to become disciplined. You do the one thing, and the discipline follows.

So don't go looking for the perfect habit. Go looking for the one door you can actually open tomorrow morning. Everything else will start walking through it on its own.

The Build an Unbreakable Mind program for building mental discipline is now open for enrollment!

My book Stoicism 101 is available! Order here!

Find out more at https://stoic.coffee

Watch episodes on YouTube!

Find me on linkedIn, instagram, or threads.

Thanks again for listening!

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

When was the last time that you read a book. A serious book. Something stretched your mind? Something that you had to stop and go back and reread a sentence or paragraph to make sure you understood it? Maybe even learned some new words? New ideas? In this episode, let’s talk about why you should read deeper — not just so you can check another book off your list, but as a tool to help you deal with the complexities of life.

“Friends, the school of a philosopher is a hospital. When you leave, you should have suffered, not enjoyed yourself.” — Epictetus

The Problem

Last year, only 60% of Americans read at least one book. Almost 57% of Americans placed a bet. That's not a statistic I'm making up to be dramatic. It's from a piece in The Atlantic by Rose Horowitch called "The End of Reading Is Here." She's not calling us illiterate. She's calling us something worse, in a way — post-literate. Still surrounded by words. Words everywhere. Just losing the capacity, and the appetite, to sit with the hard ones.

The top selling books today are simpler and less complex, with young adult novels taking the lead, even among adults. Libraries are following this trend getting easier to read books for patrons. In 1958 the English translation of Doctor Zhivago was the best selling book. Boris Pastenak wrote in long complex sentences, demanding your attention. Last years top novel? Sunrise on the Reaping, the latest in the Hunger Games series. Nothing wrong with that book, but nobody's calling it a wrestling match.

I want to be clear about something before I go further: this isn't me being a snob about it. This isn't "kids these days" or "nobody reads anymore, sad." This is me pointing out something specific — we are choosing, at scale, to stop training the one muscle that everything else in a thinking life depends on. And I don't think that's a coincidence that it's happening at the exact moment we need that muscle most.

Difficult reading, as Maryanne Wolf, a cognitive neuroscientist at UCLA points out, strengthens the cognitive abilities of comprehension and synthesis—the ability to read something and integrate it into real life situations.

And here's why it matters. When you stop reading hard things, you don't just read less. You lose practice at friction. At hitting a sentence you don't understand and going back over it instead of scrolling past it. At holding two conflicting ideas in your head at once instead of picking a side in the first four words. You start expecting to be handed the conclusion. Told what to feel. And when real life doesn't hand you the conclusion, when it just hands you the mess and expects you to work it out, you're out of practice for the one skill that job requires.

Why is Reading Hard?

Reading and writing is not something that comes naturally to us as humans. Our brains don’t naturally have a space set aside for processing the written word. This is a skill that we have developed as humans. Writing allowed us to preserve ideas that otherwise would have been handed down orally, and changed in each telling.

But in that development we’ve also developed logic, grammar, rationality, mathematics, emotional complexity. In order to put something down on paper, the author has to think through their arguments and clearly articulate what they are actually trying to say, so they can best communicate their ideas to the reader.

On the reader’s side, it means that the arguments and ideas don’t disappear as they do when a conversation or video ends. It’s still there on the page, allowing you to go back and dive deeper, consider other possibilities, find rebuttals, and poke holes the flaws you might find.

Reading doesn’t just give you information. The act of reading literally changes the way that you think. Reading helps you construct mental models in a way that no other medium can.

Reading also places you in the mind of other people. It’s like you experience the world as another person. You read their thoughts and observations. You understand a completely different perspective on that world that you otherwise couldn’t. If you only stick to books that are easy, or ones that speak to your worldview, then you never understand how others experience the world.

As we become a more oral and visual world, thanks to social media, we lose something. Social media, while at times can be instructional, is meant to be entertaining and hook your attention, not to deeply educate you. It’s too short for the reader (or watcher) to really engage in the material, to challenge their own thinking. It’s simplified down to soundbites and that’s not a way to educate yourself. If it doesn’t catch your attention, you skim past it looking for something to amuse rather than inform.

Videos are a more passive form of engagement, requiring less imagination and reasoning. In a study by University of California San Francisco, they found that reading actually increases the size of the cortex in the brain. Those that spent more time reading performed better on cognitive tests. Those that spent more time watching videos actually had regions of the brain decrease and performed worse on the same cognitive tests.

This weakens our ability to handle the complexities of the world, other people, and even ourselves. We reduce things down to simple narratives and assumptions. Things become more black and white, eliminating the shades of gray and nuance that are part of the complex world we live in.

The Thinking Class

A few months ago, I listened to an interview with Brené Brown where she noticed an interesting disconnect. She talked about how in her work that she meets with leaders from all kinds of companies, including some of the top tech firms. Every leader she talks to tells the people under them to learn to code, learn data science, get the technical skill that'll survive the future. Yet, when pressed on the books that they read that actually shaped them the most, they all mentioned books on philosophy, critical thinking, literature, psychology, history, even art. None of them pointed to a technical book.

That's not hypocrisy. That's a class system, and it's an honest one, whether anyone means it that way or not. One class gets trained to execute, the other gets to keep the skill of deciding what's worth executing in the first place.

And the interesting things is that a YouGov study on reading in America backs this up. They found that that just 19% of Americans read 82% of the books.

So the question is, which class do you want to be in?

If you’re not expanding your mind, if you’re not challenging yourself to consider alternate viewpoints and new ideas, then you’re making that choice.

When we meet challenges in our lives we can either lower the bar, or increase our capacity. Lowering the bar is easier. Increasing your capacity is harder. But which one has a higher likelihood of being successful?

Attention

What this comes down to is not only are we losing our ability to think about complex things, we’re losing our ability to pay attention. SAT and ACT scores have been falling each year as students struggle with long reading passages, even as the test creators have been shortening the passages for reading comprehension.

College students, even in Ivy League schools, regularly complain about having to read long books for their classes. Not just because they are difficult, but because they struggle with the capacity to finish reading them. Teachers are being instructed to use shorter passages from the books, basically dumbing down the curriculum.

Margaret Rennix, Harvard’s assistant director for humanities and social-sciences support, even talked about how some students see reading as a burdensome way to acquire knowledge.

Think about that. Isn’t that what higher education is about? Increasing your capacity and skills? Challenging yourself so that you’re better, smarter, more creative than when you started?

If we as a society aren’t even just keeping up, but are actively lowering the bar, how do we expect to continue advancing, not just technologically, or as a society, but as human beings?

As Neil Postman wrote in his book, Amusing Ourselves to Death:

"When a population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments... a nation finds itself at risk; a culture-death is a clear possibility." — Neil Postman

The Philosophy

Here's the thing the Stoics understood about the mind two thousand years before anyone ran an fMRI study on it: attention isn't a background feature. It's the kernel of the operating system.

They had a word for it, prosoche, which is usually translated as attention, but it’s really closer to vigilance — a trained, sustained watchfulness over your own mind. They treated it as the foundational discipline. Not a nice-to-have next to the "real" Stoic work. It’s the foundation everything else stands on. Because before you can sort what's in your control from what isn't, before you can choose a response instead of reacting, you have to actually be there long enough to see the choice in front of you. No attention, no discipline. No discipline, no Stoicism.

Epictetus points this out directly:

"When you relax your attention for a while, do not fancy you will recover it whenever you please; but remember this, that because of your fault of today your affairs must necessarily be in a worse condition in future occasions." — Epictetus

So when I say we're losing the ability to sit with a hard sentence, I'm not being precious about literature. I'm saying we're losing the raw material the whole practice runs on. You cannot examine an impression you scrolled past.

Seneca saw his own century's version of this. Not video, not doomscrolling. For him it was people bouncing from scroll to scroll, author to author, never landing anywhere long enough to actually digest it. He wrote to his friend Lucilius:

"You must linger among a limited number of master-thinkers, and digest their works, if you would derive ideas which shall win firm hold in your mind." — Seneca

Linger. Digest. Firm hold. He's not telling Lucilius to read more. He's telling him to read deeper, on fewer things, or end up, in his word, "unsteady." Swap "authors and books of every sort" for "tabs and feeds and fifteen-second clips" and he's describing your Tuesday.

Here's where people get it backwards: they hear "read hard books" and assume it's about sounding smart. It's not. It's about training the exact muscle Stoic practice needs to function at all — staying with something uncomfortable long enough to actually think, instead of reaching for the next hit of easy resolution. Lose that muscle, and you haven't just gotten less well-read, you've lost the capacity for the thing you're actually here trying to practice.

The Practice

So what do you actually do with this. Three things, and none of them require a syllabus.

First: pick one book, and finish it before you start another. This is Seneca's actual prescription, not a metaphor. Most of us have four books going at once and finish none of them, which means we never get past the first, easy layer of any of them. Pick one hard book. No new book starts until that one's done. That's the whole rule.

Second: give it twenty minutes before you're allowed to quit. I noticed when doing theater that Shakespeare was always a challenge for me at first. But about fifteen, twenty minutes in, something shifts. The rhythm starts to land. The jokes start landing where they're supposed to. It's the same thing that happens learning a language. Most people quit a hard book a few pages in, right before the part where it would've started working on them.

Third: build your capacity for attention, your prosoche: take a difficult paragraph from a book you’re reading and really read it. Then read it again. Then, out loud or on paper, explain what it's actually arguing, not what it's about. "This is about grief" is a summary. "He's arguing that grief is the tax we pay for having loved something specific, not something in general" is the argument. That gap between noticing the topic and naming the claim is where the attention actually gets built. Do that once a day and in a month you'll notice you're doing it automatically with things that aren't books. Conversations. Arguments online. Your own thoughts.

None of this is about becoming a more impressive person at dinner parties. It's building the capacity that lets you tell the difference between what's really happening and what you're being told is happening. Conclusion

When I was a child my mother read to me and my siblings every night. Not just when it was convenient. Not when she felt like it. Every night. Even if it was late, we’d read a short book. We had weekly trips to the library which were just as exciting as going to the playground. We even had a Christmas tradition of reading a chapter a night of The Best Christmas Pageant Ever each December.

I passed along that reading habit to my own kids, reading such treasures as Goodnight Opus, The Stinky Cheeseman, and Cowboy and Octopus before tucking them into bed each night. Taking them to the library or Powell’s books each weekend. If they wanted a book, I’d get it for them.

Reading has always been a constant in my life. I always had an extra book in my backpack throughout school, and regularly hit up the used book store when I was in college. When I moved to Amsterdam, I sold and gave away hundreds of books, which I now kind of regret, as I’m slowly rebuilding my library after moving back to Portland.

So I would implore you read some hard books. Not just about philosophy, but other ideas. For me some hard books that changed my worldview include James Carse’s Finite and Infinite Games, Carlo Rovelli’s the Arrow of Time, and Douglas Hofstader’s Gödel, Escher, Bach. The first two aren’t that long but are can shift your perspective in a chapter. The latter, I’ll admit is thick and takes work to get through, but the mental payoff is worth it.

And the thing is, we don’t just have to spend all our time reading books on philosophy, history, or science.  Reading can be educational and entertaining. There are plenty of other books that are complex and challenging that are also entertaining. Personally, I love reading complex science fiction. Works from Asimov, Neil Stephenson, Ursula Le Guin, and Andy Weir have have complex plots, and novel ideas that have changed the way I think. Each one created a world that I conjured in my own imagination, with the help of the author, experiencing things that I never would have considered on my own.

Lastly, reading is fun. You don’t have to read only complex books. You can read something just because it delights you. I remember reading The Hitchhiker’s Guide the Galaxy and laughing my ass off. Every now and then I pick up a Christopher Moore book because I find them ridiculously entertaining. But try to have some veggies with your dessert.

The point is, reading is a muscle that will weaken over time, so make sure you get your reps in.

But read those hard books to so that you can be part of the thinking class, not the part that follows them. Prosoche, vigilance of mind, is how you buy your way into the first group. Not money. Not credentials. Just the willingness to sit with something difficult long enough to actually see it.

As Epictetus put it:

“We should discipline ourselves in small things, and from there progress to things of greater value.” —Epictetus

So, which one are you training for? I know which camp I’m in. See you at the library.

The Build an Unbreakable Mind program for building mental discipline is now open for enrollment!

My book Stoicism 101 is available! Order here!

Find out more at https://stoic.coffee

Watch episodes on YouTube!

Find me on linkedIn, instagram, or threads.

Thanks again for listening!

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Jon Brooks is the host of the Stoic Handbook podcast and Substack page. In this episode we talk about the dangers of over-managing your emotions and finding ways to be a good Stoic while not shutting yourself off emotionally.

You can find out more about Jon and his work at stoichandbook.co

The Build an Unbreakable Mind program for building mental discipline is now open for enrollment!

My book Stoicism 101 is available! Order here!

Find out more at https://stoic.coffee

Watch episodes on YouTube!

Find me on linkedIn, instagram, or threads.

Thanks again for listening!

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Courage, one of the four cardinal virtues of Stoicism, is what I consider the fuel for virtue, and really for living a good life. But what does courage actually look like? Are we born courageous or it it something we can develop? In today’s episode we’re going to dive into what Stoics taught about courage and how it’s backed up by modern science.

What Does It Actually Take to Be Courageous?

"Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point."

—C.S. Lewis

The Problem

When I started this podcast, I was scared. Not just nervous. Scared. I was convinced that at any moment, someone was going to figure out that I didn't belong — that I wasn't qualified enough, smart enough, or interesting enough to be talking about Stoic philosophy to strangers on the internet. Imposter syndrome was ever present. Every episode I recorded in those early days, I'd finish it and think, "That’s probably the one where people are going quit listening."

But here's what I've come to understand after years of doing this work — that feeling wasn't a warning. It was an invitation. An invitation to do something that takes real courage: to show up honestly, even when you don't feel ready.

Today I want to talk about courage. Not the Hollywood version — the battlefield moment, the heroic leap. Real courage. The everyday, grinding, unsexy kind that determines the actual quality of your life.

Researcher Brené Brown has spent twenty years studying this. The other day I was listening to a podcast where she was a guest, and they were talking about what it takes to be courageous. What she found in her research cuts against everything we think we know. Courage, she says, isn't a personality trait. It's not something you have or don't have. It's a collection of four learnable skills. And when I dug into her framework for the first time, I kept stopping because the Stoics had already mapped the same territory two thousand years earlier.

So that's what we're doing today. Brown's four skill sets of courage, paired with the Stoic philosophy that's been teaching the same lessons since before Rome fell. And I'll tell you where each one showed up in my own life, because if it's worth talking about, it's worth being honest about.

Let's get into it.

PHILOSOPHY & PRACTICE

SKILL SET ONE: Rumbling with Vulnerability

Brown's first skill set is what she calls "rumbling with vulnerability." She defines vulnerability as uncertainty, risk, and emotional exposure. And the rumble part matters — it means staying in the discomfort instead of tapping out. Not performing openness. Actually sitting with the hard thing.

Most of us don't do this. We armor up. We get busy, get sarcastic, get certain — anything to avoid the exposed feeling of not knowing, of being seen, of possibly being wrong or hurt or rejected.

Brown's research shows that without this foundational skill, the other three are impossible. You cannot be courageous while armored. The armor has to come off first, because vulnerability is a prerequisite for courage. You can’t be courageous if something doesn’t scare you.

The Stoics called this prosoche — self-examination. The practice of looking honestly at yourself, not to punish yourself, but to see clearly.

Socrates felt this was so important that he said, “An unexamined life is not worth living.”

He would often practice self-questioning, cross-examining his own thinking about something. Once, while on campaign with the Athenian army, he stood still on a beach for 24 hours, lost in deep thought. The other soldiers, curious about what was going on, gathered around keeping vigil. Then as the sun rose, be woke from his trance-like state, said a prayer to the day, then went on as if nothing had happened.

Epictetus pushed his students toward self-examination constantly. And Seneca in his treatise On Anger describes his own nightly practice in first person. He wrote:

“When the light has been removed and my wife has fallen silent, aware of this habit that’s now mine, I examine my entire day and go back over what I’ve done and said, hiding nothing from myself, passing nothing by.”

And then, crucially, he doesn't spiral into self-condemnation. He says:

“For why should I be afraid of any of my mistakes, when I can say: ‘Beware of doing that again, and this time I pardon you.’”

That's the practice. See it clearly. Don't hide from it. Just let it go and do better.

When I started this podcast, the vulnerability wasn't optional. I was putting my voice, my face, my actual beliefs out into the world with no idea if anyone would care. That exposure, was scary. But the harder vulnerability, the one that took more courage, was admitting to myself that I was afraid. That I felt like a fraud. Because as long as I kept that hidden, even from myself, I couldn't do anything about it.

The Stoic practice of self-examination gave me a framework for that. Not "beat yourself up at the end of the day." Look honestly. What did you avoid? What did you do from fear instead of from your values? See it. Correct it. Move on.

Doing so allowed me to see myself not as some sage that knew everything, but a fellow traveler along the road, sharing what I’ve learned. That my experiences, both my successes and my failures, could be of use to others.

Practice: Tonight, before you sleep, spend five minutes doing this. Not a gratitude list. An honest review. Where did you avoid something you knew you should face? Not to shame yourself — to see clearly. That's the beginning of courage.

SKILL SET TWO: Living into Our Values

Brené’s second skill set is living into our values, and to be precise about what those values are. She says most people have vague, aspirational values. Integrity. Honesty. Courage. But vague values don't guide behavior under pressure. She pushes people to get specific: what does integrity actually look like in a hard conversation? What does honesty cost you when it's inconvenient?

That gap between stated values and actual behavior is where courage lives or dies.

The Stoics made this the center of their entire philosophy. Virtue, excellence of character, wasn't an abstract idea or an aspiration. It was how you acted, specifically, when it was hard. Marcus writes in Meditations:

"No random actions, none not based on underlying principles."

Every action either expresses your values or betrays them. There's no neutral ground.

And Marcus knew how easy it is to betray them. He was the most powerful man on Earth. He had every excuse to let himself off the hook. He wrote the Meditations as a daily practice of bringing himself back to his values because he knew that without that discipline, the gap widens without you noticing.

One of the things I committed to early on with this podcast was honesty. Not just talking about Stoic philosophy in the abstract, but being real about where I struggle with it. That meant talking about my failures on air. Not as a performance of humility — that's its own kind of armor. But because the show is built on the premise that this work is hard and real, and pretending otherwise would be a lie. It would go against the actual virtue I’m trying to teach.

That was harder than it sounds. There's a version of a podcast host that looks like they have everything figured out. I knew my audience might be more comfortable if I projected that image. But it would have been a betrayal of what I actually believe, which is that the messy, uncertain, still-figuring-it-out life is the only honest one.

Living into your values means it costs you something. If it doesn't cost you anything, you're not really being tested.

Practice: Name two values that are genuinely yours. Not what sounds good, but what actually guides you at your best. Then find one moment from the past week where you acted against them. That's not dwelling on failure. That's useful information. That's where the work is.

SKILL SET THREE: Braving Trust

Brown's third skill set is braving trust. She breaks trust down into specific, observable behaviors — she has an acronym, BRAVING, that maps it out.

B — Boundaries: Say no when you need to; respect others' no

R — Reliability: Do what you say, consistently, without overpromising

A — Accountability: Own your mistakes, apologize, make amends

V — Vault: Keep confidences — don't share what isn't yours to share

I — Integrity: Choose courage over comfort; what's right over what's easy

N — Non-judgment: Ask for what you need without judgment; others can do the same

G — Generosity: Extend the most generous interpretation of others' intentions

But the core insight is this: trust is not a feeling. It's not something that just happens between people. It's built through consistent, specific actions over time. And it requires courage because trusting someone means accepting that you can be hurt.

Most of us either over-trust, where we hand ourselves over and get burned, or we under-trust, we armor up, and we end up isolated. Neither is courage. Courage is the willingness to be in genuine relationship, with your eyes open, knowing the risk.

The Stoics were deeply committed to this idea, even though we don't always talk about it. They believed that humans are fundamentally social, that we are made for community, for relationship, for mutual care. Marcus returns to this again and again. We are not isolated units managing our own inner states. We are connected to each other, and our obligations to that connection are part of what it means to live well. Justice (dikaiosyne) one of the four cardinal virtues, is entirely about relationships with others. You cannot be fully virtuous alone.

I took two breaks from this podcast. Both times, it was because I needed to deal with personal challenges in my life. And both times, the hardest part wasn't the break itself. It was trusting my audience to still be there when I came back.

That's a hard thing. When you build something with people over years, you feel an obligation to them. And stepping away feels like a breach of that. But here's what I had to learn: sticking around just to please others wasn’t serving them. It was serving my fear of being abandoned. Showing up when I wasn't actually present wasn't trust. It was a transaction. Real trust meant being honest about where I was and trusting that the relationship was strong enough to hold it.

It was. Both times.

Practice: Think of one relationship where trust has eroded — maybe slowly, maybe all at once. Don't start with what the other person did. Start with your own behavior. What specific thing did you do or not do that contributed to that erosion? That's your work.

SKILL SET FOUR: Learning to Rise

Brown's fourth skill set is learning to rise, and she's clear that this doesn't mean bouncing back quickly or pretending the fall didn't hurt. It means owning the full story of what happened. Not the sanitized version, not the victim version, not the "everything happens for a reason" version. The real version. What happened. How it felt. What you contributed to it. And what you're going to do differently.

That's hard. Most of us either grab onto the failure and let it define us, or we rush past it and pretend it didn't happen. Rising means doing neither. It means going through it.

Marcus Aurelius wrote what is probably the most quoted line in all of Stoic philosophy:

"The impediment to action advances action. What stands in the way becomes the way."

People print it on posters and put it on coffee mugs. But what it's actually describing is something brutal and honest — that the obstacle doesn't get removed. You go through it. The going through is the point. The going through is what builds you.

I picked this podcast back up twice. And both times, I had to reckon with the question of whether I was coming back because I had something real to say, or because I felt guilty about quitting. That distinction matters. Rising isn't just resuming. It's understanding what happened, being honest about it, and choosing to move forward from that honesty rather than from fear or ego.

The episodes I've done about my own failures, the relationships I've gotten wrong, the times I've been less than I wanted to be, those are some of the most important things I've made. Not because failure is glorious. It's not. But because the willingness to look at it honestly, to say "this is what I did and this is what it cost me and here's what I learned," that's what makes the philosophy real. That's the difference between reading about Stoicism and actually practicing it.

Practice: Pick one failure you're still carrying. Not a small inconvenience. A real one. The kind that still has weight when you think about it. Write down three things: what happened, what you contributed to it, and one specific thing it taught you. Not a silver lining. An actual lesson you can act on.

Conclusion

Brown's research and Stoicism arrive at the same place through different routes. Courage is not the absence of fear. It is not armor. It is not performing strength while feeling nothing.

It is the willingness to examine yourself honestly. To act from your actual values when it costs you something. To trust, and to be trustworthy, even knowing you can be hurt. And to fall — because you will fall — and to get back up having actually learned something instead of just surviving.

That is what this podcast has been about since the beginning. Not because I figured it all out before I started recording. But because I kept choosing, imperfectly and over and over again, to show up honestly. To rumble with the discomfort. To let the work be real.

That's the invitation this week. Not to be fearless. To be honest. Courage follows honesty. It always does.

The Build an Unbreakable Mind program for building mental discipline is now open for enrollment!

My book Stoicism 101 is available! Order here!

Find out more at https://stoic.coffee

Watch episodes on YouTube!

Find me on linkedIn, instagram, or threads.

Thanks again for listening!

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Kelly McGinnis has a long and storied career working her way up the corporate ladder to CFO and later President of Thermo Fischer, a Fortune 100 company. In this episode we discuss ideas around what it takes to be good leader, company culture, and stepping out on your own.

The Build an Unbreakable Mind program for building mental discipline is now open for enrollment!

My book Stoicism 101 is available! Order here!

Find out more at https://stoic.coffee

Watch episodes on YouTube!

Find me on linkedIn, instagram, or threads.

Thanks again for listening!

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.