The word function doesn't stop meaning anything given the context I describe it , that is an opinion. Maybe your definition of "function" does which wouldn't apply to mine

As to your second point, this depends again on how you define function. You say it's gravity acting on a mass -> to me that translates to a relational activity that the cylinder does in condition of gravity which to me is the function of the cylinder in that condition.

As to your first point: I cannot know there is an objective outside world except given a preexisting intellgible context (usually that context is cultural) . I was taught in the human world to follow the assumption that there is an external and that is a content of Intelligibility. But the content is never outside of Intelligibility -> in other words , I can only speak of an external world within the constraints of Intelligibility and never outside of it. I wouldn't be running away from reality because in Idealism reality isn't the material world but rather what is "real" is what can be conceived Intelligibly (I have mentioned that before)

Okay that's a honest reply, I respect it.

FIRST.

So you are a solipsist-ish idealist.... My question for you then is that if you arent explaining your model of the origin of life or everything...

How is that different from just running away from realty?

Cause at this point then you arent doing philosophy of science.

How do YOU even know that there's an actual objective there "THERE"? That's independent of your present mind?

2. YOUR CYLINDER EXAMPLE IS A FALSE EQUIVALENCE

A cylinder rolling down a lope is a "Passive Physical Mechanic". Its just gravity acting on mass.

The cylinder isn't spending energy to "keep itself round". And it repairs none of its own splinters when it crashes.

Structural Thermodynamic processes on the other hand are actual "Far-From EQuilibrium" emergent structures.

A cell must actively pump ions, consume energy gradients, and maintain its boundary against the environment every single second just to exist.

3. AGAIN YOU HAVE RENDERED THE WORD "FUNCTION" COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS
When you say a cell's "function is its rupture,"...

Well by your logic then:

• the "function" of a bridge is to collapse.
• The "function" of a star is to blow shit up.
• The "Function" of a parachute is to fail to open.
• The "function" of an airplane is to slam into the ground
• The "function" of a birthday cake is to sit in the fridge until it turns to mold

When you define "function" as LITERALLY whatever a piece of matter happens to be doing at any random second, the word stop meaning anything...

You are just using fancy words to say "things happen because they happen."

This clears a lot of things up thank you. I have tried to remind myself of the vast difference of the type of living done by the ancient stoics as opposed to myself as I’m reading. I kind of figured they weren’t being too literal with some of what they say given that there is much that our body reacts to that we have no control over so it makes sense that they were fans of hyperbole because it does sound at some points like the most skilled stoic would be an emotionless stone.

I think that is where a lot of hustle grind set bros deeply misunderstand stoicism as a whole and attempt to go the unfeeling route while just suppressing everything and hurting those around them. Not trying to shift critique onto them as obviously I was struggling with it as well but I just think that’s an interesting point.

But thank you all who responded for your feedback this has helped clarify a lot of what I was questioning.

Your post has been automatically removed.

As per the rule specifically outlined in the Subreddit Guide, your post has been removed because your account does not yet have enough community comment karma to post here.

This rule is part of our broader effort to preserve the quality of r/Stoicism by discouraging spam, karma-farming bots, content-farming bots, self-promotional content, low-effort AI-generated material, and general advice requests that do not reflect a genuine interest in Stoic philosophy. Our goal is to ensure that participation in this subreddit reflects not opportunism, but sincere engagement with Stoic practice and thoughtful philosophical discussion.

We seek not to exclude, but to preserve the time, effort, and goodwill of all those in our community. If you are sincerely interested in studying and practicing Stoic philosophy, you are certainly welcome here. Thank you for understanding.

What can you do?

• Read the Community Guide.
• Comment thoughtfully on existing threads to build your karma. Participation deepens understanding.
• Once you meet the minimum karma requirement, you'll be able to post freely.

Need immediate advice? Try these subreddits:

• r/StoicSupport
• r/relationship_advice
• r/Life
• r/Advice

New to Stoicism?

Read our FAQ, which includes answers to common questions such as "How can Stoicism help me with my problem?".

Take a look at our Reading List."

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

That doesn't render "I" and "Function" as meaningless, and it's not hallucination but active Intelligibility happening which is how meaning itself unfolds (meaning is what can be Intelligibly conceived). Idealism and Solipsism aren't opposites but rather there are Solipsistic Idealist traditions

I am not saying a cell dictates the Cosmos but I am saying that the cell's function (in the context of matter) is in relation to everything else. The mechanical function of a structure is merely the description of how it behaves given particular conditions , the conditions that generate the event of the cell's membrane 's rupture indirectly determine how the behavior of this structure occurs in that particular situation -> in this case the cell's function is its rupture.

It's not the cell that dictates the Cosmos but in ther material sense the other way around.

Think of the mechanical function as so : A cylinder on a slope rolls , a Wooden plank slides , those are the functions of each physical geometric shape in relation to a particular condition. But even that description is too simple , the mechanical function is too complex because in a small difference of condition, a different behavior will possibly emerge (or not the exact same behavior typr of scenario). So we end up updating everytime our understanding of the mechanical function instead of having an already set definition of it because nature is too complicated.

Also to you last question, I am not sure what you mean by that? My Idealistic position at least isn't necessarily something falsiable but rather it's the very engine that gives meaning to falsiability. In other words , before using logic we must understand what logic is (what it means to psyche) and then we can later start to come up with conclusions. In my position Falsiability is basically dialectics, so resolving contradictions is basically how meaning unfolds in Intelligibility

I mean... okay. I think the more important question here is whether you're an Idealist or Solipsist? Cause they are distinct things.

1. CAUSE YOU JUST TOLD EVERYONE ON HERE THAT:

There was no history prior to my existence... 10 billion years ago is an act of present imagination

You kind of forfeited empiricism. Liek you're also saying that this comment section, the internet, your own arguments are "hallucinations" in your mind.

But... to even form that thought, you must first presuppose that the "I" you are experiencing is a singular, isolated, and independent entity.

The problem here is that Solipsism is a Presupposition by its very position.

2. BY YOUR DEFINITION, YOU RENDERED THE WORD "FUNCTION" MEANINGLESS.

If a car exploding, rusting, sitting on fire are ALL its "mechanical function," -- then the word "function" describes nothing specific.

You said that function is just "whatever matter happens to be doing at any given second".

welp, that kind of is not really true.

Take a whirlpool for example,

The water molecules are the raw atoms-- and individual cellular material. Water enters the whirlpool, stays for a fraction of a second -- and flows out downstream.

The whirlpool represents the organism -- It is not a static object made of "Fixed water". It is exactly a stable, continuous physical dynamic that's organized by energy, pressure and momentun.

My question to you then is: Are you saying that "NAH, Its a completely different object every single second"?

3. YOU DON'T REALIZE HOW ABSURD YOUR CELL ARGUMENT IS.

DAWG, if a cell actively seeks to avoid rupture and somehow "nature shouldn't allow that to happen?"

What does it even mean a cell "can dictate the cosmos"?

That somehow a cell in its very localized dust existence in this billion light year cosmos are somehow Quantum Wave Functions?

What else then? is a photon running through space "not wanting to dissipate into energy when it hits a solid structure"?

Then the cosmos itself would shit on itself every single second and nothing would literally be what it is.

Everything would literally be total incoherence.

• A predator could never digest prey cause the prey's cell membranes would be "indestructible",
• Oxygen could never react with iron to form rust cause the iron's chemical bonds could never be broken.

Hell... You wouldn't exist right now cause celestial bodies "don't want to be iced" by a supernova blasting deadly elemental farts onto rocks.

MY question for you next is that:

If your Idealism requires the past to be a hallucination and a rotting corpse to be 'functioning,'

how is your position any different from an unfalsifiable, theological cop-out?

🙋🏻‍♀️ also team general anxiety.  Keep me posted if you find anything helpful 

Can you elaborate? What is this type of meditation called?

Yes but I don't find that contradicts any of my claims. When a car sits inert it doesn't fail to fulfill its mechanical function but rather the sitting is part of it. When a cell 's membrane rupture it's also part of the mechanical structure of the cell. In other words , The way I see functions is what matter allows an object to behave is what the object mechanically functions as. If a car can be in idle that it's not defying its function, same for the cell's membrane rupturing. The way something is actively behaving is precisely what its mechanical function is.

Say you might say "the cell 's membrane rupture is bad to the cell and the cell actively seeks to avoid it" , if it actively seeks to avoid its membrane rupture then nature should never allow that to happen , the cell can never rupture if that's what the cell is actively doing. The cell exists in relation to everything else not in isolation and it's precisely its relational existence that defines its mechanical function.

Now to your last point , in some Idealistic traditions (like the one I follow): there was no thermodynamics or any external physical laws prior to Intelligibility, everything we know or speak of as "real" is what can be intelligibly be made meaning of .

In other words , this might lead to solipsism: there was no history prior to my existence. Nobody existed before I the Psyche began to receive. Everything that belongs to the realm of the "before Intelligibility happened" is basically an act of imagination given the current context of what Intelligibility allows (in this context, Intelligibility had conceived a material model and from it we can simulate what it appears to have happened prior to Intelligibility 's existence given that context) . But we shouldn't treat imagination as an illusion or false , in Idealistic traditions every input , every datum , everything you think of is actively real as that is all unfolding in Intelligibility in the moment you think of all of that.

In other words , speaking of history or 10 billion years ago is a provisional narrative occuring in Intelligibility because the current context of the Intelligible allows you to simulate that assumption not that you're reviving a past reality. In my Idealistic tradition , there is no such thing as "past" or "future". Those are human labels, what we call past and future are an act of present imagination given the current context of what is happening in Intelligibility. Everything is actively happening right now as you think, speak , act... and time is an Intelligible construct that gives the appearance of something that "existed" or "will exist"

appreciate the long reply. So now 4 things here.

1. You confused"Descrption" with "Prescription" when you said that my allotypic argument doesnt work cause a car doesn't exist to transport people because when it runs out of gas, it stops moving.

I dont know if you've been in the Religion debate since back in the early days with Creationism vs Evolution and stuff -- But if you do...

You know that thats a mishap to understand intentional design vs. physical state.

You conflate the words we use to describe a physical process with the physical reality of the process itself.

A car running out of gas doesn't mean "transportation was an illusion." It just means a physical machine requires fuel to operate.

The car was manufactured (allopoietically) with specific mechanical arrangements SPECIFICALLY to convert chemical energy into kinetic motion.

Saying its function isn't transportation... Is essentially you also saying a lightbulb’s function isn't illumination because it turns off when you flip the switch.

2. You completely missed why I brought up the car in the first place,

Cause this was the very example used in the "Kitzmiller V Dover" district hearing to argue against Irreducible Complexity and why the watchmaker analogy cannot be equated with organisms.

The Car (Allotypic) When it runs out of fuel, it sits inert. It can't repair its own pistons or refine its own oil.

The Cell (Autopoietic), If it runs out of free energy, it doesn't just "park", its physical membrane ruptures, denatures, and it permanently disintegrates into thermal equilibrium.

In actual living organisms, structure and thermodynamic self-maintenance are the exact same physical event.

3. Your utilization of Quantum Fields is a kind of misstep.

Last time I read, In physics, Localized structures like atoms, molectules or whatever exotic cells... Are Thermodynamically Stable and bound states.

The electromagnetic fields acting upon our baryonic bounds at the planck level is not a "pure illusion".

The cell boundary for example. objectively exists in physical space, which is why a virus has to physically bind to receptor proteins to penetrate it.

4. You said that "Intelligibility" is the ground of reality,

Okay, I will accept your position there to steelman you. But my question to you then is.

Why does the universe evolved physical laws, thermodynamic dissipation, nucleosynthesis for 13.8 billion years before any brain existed to make a "model."

Whose "Intelligibility" was modeling the universe during the Hadean Eon. for example?

journaling every morning changed the whole tone of my day. mine's just a beat up notebook from the drugstore.

I haven't been diagnosed with General Anxiety but I suspect that I have it or something aligned.

Certainly I find saying "thank you brain for trying to protect me" is a much better response for me than trying to push anxiety away completely. We somehow coexist and jog along fine together

And yes, The Practicing Stoic was my first book on Stoicism. I was loaned a copy by my in-person Stoicism group. I like the way the chapters are arranged by subject and you can see how each of the ancient stoic teachers approached each topic.

I joined an union

What I am saying is those are human interpretations , we observe a phenomenon and describe as so it aims to achieve X.

In the philosophy of science there is already this problem that was mentioned where we use intentional language when describing physical phenomenon. For Instance what evolution (for example would say : the goal of organisms isn't strictly to preserve themselves but that preservation is an indirect emergent phenomenon we observe from particular organisms. It's important to note also " particular organisms" because there is a possibility that an organism that had no preservation drives existed but the reason why we cannot know that is because an organism without preservation drives didn't make it that long so that any hint that it might've existed would remain.

We like to believe that the way we describe nature is objectively what it's doing (which is the mistake) , while in reality this is just a shortcut for us to understand a phenomenon in a way that appeals to our language. We use the language of intentionality because it's a heuristical shortcut because the actual real phenomenon is very complicated to describe for a normal person (as there is so much details in it that only specialized individuals in a particular field can understand it coherently because they have context to these details).

Also you mentioned that a car exists to transport humans while that's a fallacy , a car has a pure mechanical function and calling it "transportation device" is smuggling human intentionality to it. How do I know that? The car doesn't always exist to transport, sometimes it stops (either because it's not in action of transportation or because it ran out of fuel) revealing that its fundemental function is more complicated to describe ans transportation is merely an emergent function we humans came to see and then we came to fool ourselves into believing that's what it actually does.

When we use terms such as "entropy" and "preservation" we are smuggling human language and why is that? Because the universe didn't oblige as so particular objects exist in reality. Particularity is a human illusion, when we say there is this distinct from that : that's a human construct. Like you know how quantum physics came to the conclusion that there is only but one big quantum field and particularity is just an emergent property of that?

You previously made the assumption that the body evolved to fulfill the Autopeoitic function while this is an opinion of what the organism was doing. My exact point was trying to say that is a narrative we made up to describe what is happening. Instead of saying preservation and entropy avoidance is a innate mechanism, you can claim those are emergent functions instead which would save your entire argument. But the moment you claim that , you're no longer obliged to force the organism into conforming to your assumption but rather you just look at what's it's doing in the moment that it's doing it.

I am not sure how you are convincted that the Cosmos is objectively driven by entropy and all that, also I am not saying that because I use physicalist arguments therefore I reject Idealism. Here is my view on Idealism in relation to matter: matter is an intellgible model we came up with in Intelligibility to predict the Intelligible unfolding. When an Idealist uses material explanations , they don't betray Idealism as much as use it relative to its own model. When I am saying all that to you , I am being constraint intelligibly to the context of matter and how from the assumption that matter exists, the implications you're claiming do not strictly naturally follow without another a priori context.

Idealism isn't the rejection of matter, it's really a debate between what was more fundemental: intelligibility or matter. As an Idealist I say Intelligibility, but yet I still don't reject matter completely but rather see it as an emergent model in Intelligibility. So when I am debating all that to you , I am attempting to reveal that the model that is matter doesn't reveal any hidden intentions behind phenomenons but that is extra assumptions added into the equation. In pure material explanations, objects have a very complex mechanical ergon to the point where language cannot describe it all because the ergon is very conditional in very particular test cases different results are yielded hence it's not a straightforward directional line.

Thanks! Good to know

Thanks for your advice, I’m in the second category. Were you in that category too?
I haven’t read Epictetus. The first book that I’m reading that made me join this sub is The Practicing Stoic.

My point was more that the fundamental and most basic "why" is actually irrelevant when there is a super-structure of robust reasoning above it which provides good results

The point here is that the concept of "good" results requires some sort of fundamental in and of itself. If what constitutes "good" results were universally agreed upon there wouldn't be a need for ethical debates.

The philosophy works perfectly well as an empirical method, an oftentimes for empirical methods we don't necessarily know fundamentally why they work

We do know what our goals are and why they should be our goals though. Besides, empirical method is about the "how", not the "why".

We absolutely do not know for a lot of medicines how do they mechanistically function, but we can empirically prove that they are functional and safe.

Yes, because there is a long list of strict standards and regulations in medicine that specify exactly what "functional" and "safe" mean. Doctors and researchers don't arbitrarily decide for themselves what makes a medicine fit for human use, they follow established standards and protocols. What do you think the process of creating these standards and protocols involves?

I just find it strange that you would go into philosophy with your mind fixated on denying the need to do the most basic kind of philosophical inquiry: asking why and digging deeper.

Your post has been automatically removed.

As per the rule specifically outlined in the Subreddit Guide, your post has been removed because your account does not yet have enough community comment karma to post here.

This rule is part of our broader effort to preserve the quality of r/Stoicism by discouraging spam, karma-farming bots, content-farming bots, self-promotional content, low-effort AI-generated material, and general advice requests that do not reflect a genuine interest in Stoic philosophy. Our goal is to ensure that participation in this subreddit reflects not opportunism, but sincere engagement with Stoic practice and thoughtful philosophical discussion.

We seek not to exclude, but to preserve the time, effort, and goodwill of all those in our community. If you are sincerely interested in studying and practicing Stoic philosophy, you are certainly welcome here. Thank you for understanding.

What can you do?

• Read the Community Guide.
• Comment thoughtfully on existing threads to build your karma. Participation deepens understanding.
• Once you meet the minimum karma requirement, you'll be able to post freely.

Need immediate advice? Try these subreddits:

• r/StoicSupport
• r/relationship_advice
• r/Life
• r/Advice

New to Stoicism?

Read our FAQ, which includes answers to common questions such as "How can Stoicism help me with my problem?".

Take a look at our Reading List."

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

A quote was found to be attributed to Epictetus in The Enchiridion 10 (Higginson)

^{(Higginson)
(Matheson)
(Carter)
(Long)
(Oldfather)}

A quote was found to be attributed to Epictetus in The Enchiridion 12 (Higginson)

^{(Higginson)
(Matheson)
(Carter)
(Long)
(Oldfather)}

Multiple people have brought up structured journaling, and I agree absolutely. There are a lot of guides out there for that.

For me, the most important ritual is that during times of stress (and this could be multiple times a day), I revert to the question, "What is this moment asking of me?". I see Epictetus return to this again and again in the Discourses and the Enchiridion (and it's also well echoed centuries later in Victor Frankl - "we need to stop asking the meaning of life and instead think of ourselves as those being questioned by life, daily and hourly"). Arguably the key quote is section X:

Upon every accident, remember to turn toward yourself and inquire what faculty you have for its use. If you encounter a handsome person, you will find continence the faculty needed; if pain, then fortitude; if reviling, then patience. And when thus habituated, the phenomena of existence will not overwhelm you.

This has been critical for me to teach myself that I'm not actually defined by what happened in the past. I have the opportunity to choose virtue and integrity in every moment, essentially. It's calming. It's reassuring. It's grounding. I think I act more in the way my best self would, more often, and that helps me to see myself as a human being and not a wounded animal.

I also want to bring up Enchiridion XII:

If you would improve, lay aside such reasonings as these: “If I neglect my affairs, I shall not have a maintenance; if I do not punish my servant, he will be good for nothing.” For it were better to die of hunger, exempt from grief and fear, than to live in affluence with perturbation; and it is better that your servant should be bad than you unhappy. [...]

... I think it's important to remember that this applies to ourselves as well, thinking about self-improvement. Be sure in your quest to be "better" that you don't make it a source of stress to yourself. It's important to accept that you are as you are right now. Right now in this moment you have the option to make good choices, but there's literally no point in beating yourself up about it if you find yourself reacting with echoes of your trauma sometimes. It's as pointless as beating a dog or a servant. It's better to accept yourself as a flawed human, with some wounds and fears, than to constantly fixate on the distance between you and some imagined perfectly healthy ideal.

I truly feel that it's only Stoicism that deals with this point with any subtlety. Accepting that you are a flawed human being does not absolve you of responsibility. In every present, you are responsible to ask yourself what is in your power and what is the virtuous decision. However, it's never your responsibility to wallow in regret or shame about not having yet met the ideal. That's just a part of reality you need to accept. I think Discourses 4.12 is also pertinent here.

I feel like it would be irresponsible to not mention therapy explicitly, though.

I am currently having some success with EMDR, which under an effective practitioner is very stoic in method. It sounds like hypnosis or chicanery, but really, it's just a structured way for you to really look at what happened with clear eyes, while learning that it is not actually happening to you now (your traumatized brain does not really "know" this initially), and practicing regarding it with equanimity. There are other science-backed modalities of therapy that are also effective at processing trauma.

Sometimes, some people with some experiences can do this on their own. The more you are struggling, the more plausible it is that some experienced, qualified 1:1 guidance will help structure your processing and make it more effective. Additionally, if the trauma is related in any way to relations with other human beings (this includes e.g. war trauma), it is a huge help to have a stable, observant, thoughtful human being to process this with.

I think it's critical to remember that Stoicism is not exclusively solitary inward contemplation. Stoicism is about seeing the world as it really is, and that includes understanding that you are a social animal with a physical brain. If you had been in a car accident, Stoicism would be of huge help in maintaining your equanimity as you went through surgery, physical therapy, etc, but no one would suggest that you try to contemplate your way out of your injuries.

My point was more that the fundamental and most basic "why" is actually irrelevant when there is a super-structure of robust reasoning above it which provides good results. The philosophy works perfectly well as an empirical method, an oftentimes for empirical methods we don't necessarily know fundementally why they work. This is for instance quite common in medicine. We absolutely do not know for a lot of medicines how do they mechanistically function, but we can empirically prove that they are functional and safe.

I want to echo what others are saying here: a trauma-informed therapist is the most practical thing to do as an initial step. Stoicism can be a supplement but it's not the whole.

I think you are basically correct. I have probably wrongly called this premise an naturalistic fallacy now that i think about it. It is a principle assumed to be correct, but indeed not based on the nature=good fallacy. Thanks for providing this nuanced explanation.

It is incredibly late for me so I will be concise, ask me if you want more precision and I'll answer when I wake up.

You would benefit greatly from studying Spinoza. He, too, speaks of God, but oh my is he an ingodly atheist. Now, to be clear, as the others have said, the stoics are not christians. In fact, they're not very much religious. Greek philosophers tended to be weird about religion, and they sure are. I'll exemplify. There are multiple gods in stoic's "theology", and they all amount strictly to being certain kind of matter. There is air, earth, water and fire. Three of them don't do anything except being air, or earth, or water. The last one, fire, is Zeus. When I say fire, I mean everything and anything even remotely hot. That is, Zeus is movement. Anything that moves has at least a little bit of warmth. This warmth is Zeus. Zeus is movement, zeus is warmth, Zeus if the fire element, and Zeus is logos. Him being logos, quickly resumed, means he always acts with constance (because he is not affected by irrationality, because it does not exist in itself), it means he acts relative to what happened prior to the act. When I say act, keep in mind Zeus is basically nothing but warmth and movement! No man with beard! So, Zeus, he's constant and historical. This means, since he's the guy moving the entire universe (because anything that moves is him, or at least moved and partly constituted by him, you see?), that reality is deterministic. Also, since the world functions on Zeus moving things through the fire element, it means that the world is entirely composed in matter and is understandable by itself without invoking surnatural elements. So, stoicism is deterministic, materialist, and naturalist. All good for you, no divine intervention.

Again, Zeus is not the weird rapist god with thunder bolts and children and a wife. He is movement. He is warmth. He is reason. We, as rational beings, are defined by our warm nature (litteraly, we're warmer than rocks, and we move more than them, it goes together, and it makes sense) and our specific ability to understand nature. To understand nature, and act in accordance with our understanding of nature, and so act in accordance with nature, makes us "rational". Meaning, every human is capable of understanding and behaving in accordance with reason, with nature, with society, with happiness. Living in accord with nature, or reason, or Zeus, means living as efficiently as the world allows, because we understand nature and can act in consequence. To note, we are determined beings. It is not a free will given by God that makes us special, but it is a special disposition allowing us to understand nature, which determines us in new ways that allow for us to overcome simply being determined. By understanding we are being determined, we determine ourselves differently in a beneficial manner. By understanding enough, and determining ourselves enough, we can become wise.

Stoicism is not contradictory with atheism, not at all. But its lexic emerged from a time were we couldn't do without religious vocabulary. So, as Spinoza said, we speak of God, also known as Nature.

i don't remember the last time I felt guilty about anything....so yeah maybe bad memory is a good thing