Podcast
Practical Stoicism
Hosted by Tanner Campbell · EN
Stoicism is the pursuit of Virtue (Aretê), which was defined by the Ancient Greeks as "the knowledge of how to live excellently," Stoicism is a holistic life philosophy meant to guide us towards the attainment of this knowledge through the development of our character. While many other Stoicism podcasts focus on explaining Ancient Stoicism in an academic or historical context, Practical Stoicism strives to port the ancient wisdom of this 2300-plus-year-old Greek Philosophy into contemporary times to provide practical advice for living today, not two millennia ago. Join American philosopher of Stoicism Tanner Campbell, every Monday and Friday, for new episodes.
21episodes
Episodes
Newest firstAll episodes
Can We Make Anger Useful?
Mar 900:11:44Tap to summarizeJoin Prokoptôn, a private community of dedicated practicing Stoics working together to improve. Learn more at https://skool.com/prokopton -- In this episode, I explore Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations 6.27 and what it teaches us about anger. Marcus reminds us that when people do wrong, they do so because they believe their actions are beneficial or appropriate. Our task, therefore, is not to react with anger but to teach, explain, and correct with patience. That idea opens the door to a deeper question: what is anger actually for? Some modern thinkers claim anger is necessary for progress, even suggesting that it fuels social change. I disagree. Anger is not a driver of wise action. It is a signal. Anger alerts us that something has happened which does not accord with our expectations, values, or understanding. That is its only real utility. Once the signal appears, the work begins. We must translate that signal into usable information by asking questions: What happened? Why did it happen? What assumptions am I making? Could I be mistaken? This process turns anger into data. The signal draws our attention to an impression. Rational questioning extracts information from it. And our willingness to revise our own assumptions ensures that we do not simply act on emotional certainty. Seneca makes the Stoic position clear in On Anger: anger itself contributes nothing useful to action. Virtue never requires the assistance of vice. Anger is not a helpful fuel for moral progress. It is a destabilizing force that clouds judgment and pushes us toward impulsive decisions. The goal, then, is not to eliminate anger entirely, since it is part of our human psychology. The goal is to refuse to act while under its influence. Socrates captures this beautifully when he tells a servant, “I would strike you, were I not angry.” His point is simple. If the desire to punish someone appears at the same moment as anger, we cannot trust that the desire is rational. The wise response is to pause until calm judgment returns. This is the Stoic discipline in practice. Anger may signal that something is wrong. But only reason can determine what should be done about it. Listening on Spotify? Leave a comment! Share your thoughts. -- I am a public philosopher, it is my only job. I am enabled to do this job, in large part, thanks to support from my listeners and readers. You can support my work, keep it independent and online, at https://stoicismpod.com/members Looking for more Stoic content? Consider my 3x/week newsletter "Stoic Brekkie": https://stoicbrekkie.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Transcribe →
Can Wars Be Just?
Mar 300:14:29Tap to summarizeJoin Prokoptôn, a private community of dedicated practicing Stoics working together to improve. Learn more at https://skool.com/prokopton -- Support my work for as little as $1 a month: https://stoicismpod.com/members -- Subscribe to my Stoic Brekkie newsletter: https://stoicbrekkie.com -- I pull heavily from Leonidas Konstantakos' "Stoicism and Just War Theory" doctoral dissertation in this episode. I encourage you to download it and read it yourself: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/record/13724 -- In this episode, I take up a difficult question: can war ever be just in Stoicism? Not justified. Not strategically useful. Not legal. But truly just — meaning virtuous and right. I begin by setting aside the two dominant modern frameworks for thinking about war: utilitarianism and deontology. Utilitarianism evaluates war based on consequences. If enough good results from it, the war can be defended. Deontology evaluates war based on rules. Some actions are always wrong, regardless of outcomes. Stoicism does neither. Using the firebombing of Dresden and the ticking time bomb scenario, I explain how the Stoic approach shifts the focus away from body counts and legal rules and onto character. For the Stoic, external outcomes — even death and destruction — are morally indifferent. What matters is the internal condition of the agents making decisions. Are they acting from justice, courage, and wisdom? Or from fear, ambition, pride, or the desire to dominate? Drawing on Cicero’s On Duties and later Stoic interpretation, I outline the core criteria: right intention, proper authority, discrimination, and war as a last resort aimed at peace. A war undertaken from a corrupted value structure — where victory is treated as a good in itself — reflects vice. A war undertaken from rational concern for preserving the cosmopolis, after all other paths have been exhausted, may be just. I also address torture and why the Stoic rejects it, not because of rule-following or cost-benefit calculations, but because it corrupts the agent. It reflects disordered judgment and a failure of oikeiôsis — a failure to recognize another rational being as part of the same moral community. Stoicism is not rule-based. It is character-based. I then turn to the present. We cannot fully know the internal motives of national leaders. We can only infer. War may be just or unjust depending on the reasoning behind it. That reasoning is ultimately visible only to the agent and their daimon — their inner rational faculty. Finally, I bring the question home. Most of us are not heads of state. But the Stoic framework for just war is simply Stoic ethics scaled up. The same question applies in everyday conflict: am I acting from virtue, or from ego and fear? The work of the prokoptôn is constant self-examination, especially when stakes are high. War can be just in Stoicism. But only if it is conducted by people whose souls are ordered toward peace, whose intentions are clean, and whose reason has honestly left them no alternative. Listening on Spotify? Leave a comment! Share your thoughts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Transcribe →Curse Moral Relativism!
Feb 1900:19:07Tap to summarizeSubscribe to the FREE Stoic Brekkie newsletter: https://stoicbrekkie.com I am a public philosopher. I am enabled to do this job, in large part, thanks to support from my listeners and readers. You can support my work, and keep it independent and online, at https://stoicismpod.com/members In this episode, I respond to a short clip discussing incest as an example of emotivism in meta-ethics. Emotivism claims that when we say something is wrong, we are not stating a fact but expressing disapproval. The suggestion in the clip is that incest may ultimately be “wrong” only because we feel that it is wrong. I take that seriously. It is true that many people struggle to articulate why incest is objectively wrong beyond saying it feels disgusting. And philosophers should care about that. If something is wrong, we should be able to explain why in rational terms. Using Stoic role ethics, I outline a clear argument. In Stoicism, some roles are grounded in nature. These roles are not arbitrary. They come with built-in functions and ends. The sibling role is ordered toward familial care, trust, and cooperative development within the household. It is explicitly non-erotic because its function is to stabilize kinship bonds. The lover role, by contrast, is ordered toward erotic partnership and exclusivity. When a person attempts to merge these roles, they introduce incompatible aims into a single relationship. Stoic role ethics holds that voluntarily chosen roles must not contradict natural ones. If they do, one role must be abandoned. Because the sibling role is grounded in nature, it cannot be abandoned without corrupting its function. Adopting the lover role toward a sibling therefore represents a rational error. It makes both roles impossible to fulfil properly. This means the wrongness is not based on disgust. It is based on contradiction within the structure of human roles and the failure to live coherently within them. Stoicism does not reduce morality to feeling. It grounds moral judgment in reason, nature, and the proper fulfilment of roles within the human community. I also explain why this matters more broadly. If moral claims are reduced to preference or emotion, then they shift with culture, fashion, or mood. Stoicism resists that instability by anchoring ethics in a rational framework. That framework may be debated, refined, or defended, but it is not merely expressive. The point is simple: saying something “feels wrong” is not the same as explaining why it must be wrong. Philosophy should move us from reaction to reason. Listening on Spotify? Leave a comment! Share your thoughts. Podcast artwork by Original Randy: https://www.originalrandy.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Transcribe →🏛️ The Marcus Aurelius Fan Club [Special Edition]
Feb 1301:29:05Tap to summarizeI answer questions from a classroom of children about Stoicism and "the old times, when I was a kid." Please enjoy this special edition. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Transcribe →Zeno vs. Aristo on Indifferent Things
Feb 800:12:57Tap to summarizeI am a public philosopher, it is my only job. I am enabled to do this job, in large part, thanks to support from my listeners and readers. You can support my work, keep it independent and online, at https://stoicismpod.com/members Looking for more Stoic content? Consider my 3x/week newsletter "Stoic Brekkie": https://stoicbrekkie.com In this episode, I take up a question that seems settled, orthodox, and uncontroversial: can indifferents be preferred or dispreferred? Most Stoics would say yes and move on. But there is a serious ancient challenge to that position, and understanding it matters more than most people realize. I begin with the standard Stoic account, drawing on Zeno as recorded by Stobaeus and Cicero. Virtue alone is good, vice alone is bad, and everything else is indifferent. Still, some indifferents are naturally preferred or rejected because they align with our rational nature. Health, social cooperation, and material sufficiency are not goods, but they are “according to nature.” I then introduce the provocateur: Ariston of Chios. Ariston rejects the very idea of preferred and dispreferred indifferents. In his view, calling something a preferred indifferent is just calling it a good under another name. For Ariston, everything between virtue and vice is radically neutral, and any preference only arises situationally, never because the thing itself has standing within nature. I explain why this disagreement is not merely semantic. Ariston’s position is inseparable from his rejection of Stoic physics and logic. Once those are removed, there is no rational structure of nature to ground stable preferences. Ethics collapses into a stark minimalism where virtue alone matters and everything else is interchangeable depending on circumstance. This is why later Stoics saw Ariston as a dead end rather than a reformer. Without physics and logic, Stoic ethics loses its ability to guide action across time, roles, and recurring human situations. The philosophy becomes thinner, not sharper. Finally, I connect this ancient dispute to a modern problem. Contemporary Stoicism often tries to keep the ethics while quietly discarding the physics and logic as unnecessary or outdated. That move repeats Ariston’s mistake. Stoicism can evolve, but it cannot survive if its foundations are simply removed without replacement. You cannot pull the columns out from under the Stoa and expect the roof to hold. If we want Stoicism to remain coherent, actionable, and philosophically serious, we need to understand why preferred indifferents exist and what architectural commitments make them possible in the first place. Listening on Spotify? Leave a comment! Share your thoughts. Podcast artwork by Original Randy: https://www.originalrandy.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Transcribe →Is Sex Work Un-Stoic?
Feb 100:19:13Tap to summarizeI am a public philosopher, it is my only job. I am enabled to do this job, in large part, thanks to support from my listeners and readers. You can support my work, keep it independent and online, at https://stoicismpod.com/members Looking for more Stoic content? Consider my 3x/week newsletter "Stoic Brekkie": https://stoicbrekkie.com Musonius Rufus Discourse 12: https://archive.org/details/MUSONIUSRUFUSSTOICFRAGMENTS In this episode, I respond to a candid listener email asking about the Stoic position on sex work. The question is not framed with hostility or judgment, and for that reason I take it seriously. This is not an episode condemning women, sex workers, or anyone’s personal choices. It is an attempt to think clearly and Stoically about consent, justice, harm, and choice. I begin by clarifying what the listener is actually asking. He is not asking whether men are wrong to engage sex workers, but whether women selling sex is unjust from a Stoic perspective. That distinction matters. Stoicism is not interested in purity rules or guilt. It is interested in whether actions are chosen rationally, freely, and without injustice. I then address my own bias. I do not like sex work as a practice, largely because I am skeptical that it is ever entirely free from coercion, manipulation, or long-term harm. I make that bias explicit so it can be accounted for rather than hidden. A Stoic answer requires setting personal discomfort aside and asking whether something is unjust, not whether it feels distasteful. To explore the classical position, I turn to Musonius Rufus and his extremely restrictive views on sex. Musonius argues that sex is only justified within marriage and only for procreation. I explain why I find this position impractical, overly rigid, and inconsistent with the rest of Stoic ethics. Stoicism is about rational choice, not outcome fixation, and reducing sex to reproduction ignores human health, intimacy, and context. From there, I outline what Stoicism actually cares about. Sex is unjust only when it involves harm, coercion, deception, addiction, or unfair leverage. If a sex worker is freely choosing her work, has the power to refuse clients, is not being forced by circumstance or threat, and if the client is acting honestly and without deception, then no injustice is clearly present. In that case, there is no Stoic violation simply because money is exchanged. I also stress that moral clarity does not end with permissibility. Just because something is not unjust does not mean it is automatically wise, healthy, or worth repeating. Stoicism asks us to remain attentive to who we are becoming through our choices. Avoiding injustice does not excuse us from remaining pro-social, reflective, and responsible for our future character. I conclude by emphasizing that Stoicism offers very little in the way of sexual rules, but a great deal in the way of ethical reasoning. The question is not whether sex work is “unstoic” in the abstract. The question is always whether a choice is rational, just, non-harmful, and aligned with the kind of person we are trying to become. Listening on Spotify? Leave a comment! Share your thoughts. Podcast artwork by Original Randy: https://www.originalrandy.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Transcribe →
Stoicism Is Not Compliance Nor Blind Obedience
Jan 2500:22:58Tap to summarizeI am a public philosopher, it is my only job. I am enabled to do this job, in large part, thanks to support from my listeners and readers. You can support my work, keep it independent and online, at https://stoicismpod.com/members Looking for more Stoic content? Consider my 3x/week newsletter "Stoic Brekkie": https://stoicbrekkie.com The Iris Council: https://iriscouncil.com In this episode, I focus on the Stoic virtue of Justice and why it matters so urgently right now. Justice, in Stoicism, is not about legality or compliance with the law. It is about fairness. When we confuse what is legal with what is just, we risk excusing serious wrongdoing simply because it has been ratified by those in power. I explain why laws themselves can be unjust, especially when they are created or enforced by leaders who are not acting as protectors and benefactors of their people. If a law is out of alignment with what is fair, then the injustice lies with the law, not with those who recognize its unfairness. This is where Stoicism demands courage rather than passive acceptance. To ground this discussion, I turn to Musonius Rufus and his lecture On That Kings Too Should Practice Philosophy. Musonius argues that rulers must study philosophy because only philosophy teaches justice, self-control, courage, and rational judgment. A good king must be a good person, and a good person, by necessity, is a philosopher. Leadership without moral wisdom is not merely flawed; it is dangerous. I then broaden the lens to our responsibility as Stoics. Stoicism is not withdrawal or indifference. It is rational engagement with the world. The Cardinal Virtues work together: courage enables just action, temperance guides when to act, justice clarifies what is fair, and wisdom grounds us in our role as social beings. Leaders who divide humanity into “our kind” and “not our kind” fail this test of justice, regardless of what the law permits. Finally, I argue that our response to unjust leadership must itself be just. That requires self-examination. Before judging leaders, we must be capable of judging ourselves. A society that does not understand goodness cannot expect just leaders, and leaders drawn from such a society will reflect that confusion. What we need is not blind obedience or reckless outrage, but a serious moral recalibration rooted in Stoic philosophy. Listening on Spotify? Leave a comment! Share your thoughts. Podcast artwork by Original Randy: https://www.originalrandy.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Transcribe →
Toxic Soil
Jan 1900:10:46Tap to summarizeI am a public philosopher, it is my only job. I am enabled to do this job, in large part, thanks to support from my listeners and readers. You can support my work, keep it independent and online, at https://stoicismpod.com/members Looking for more Stoic content? Consider my 3x/week newsletter "Stoic Brekkie": https://stoicbrekkie.com In this episode, I respond to a listener question prompted by the loss of a long-lived orchid. The plant did not die from neglect, but from care that was given in ignorance. What was meant to nurture it slowly caused harm. From that story comes a serious Stoic question: when does patience become self-abandonment? When does non-reactivity turn into tolerating conditions that prevent growth? I address a common misunderstanding of Stoicism that treats emotional detachment as a virtue in itself. Stoicism does not teach that we should endure all conditions indefinitely, nor that thriving means being comfortable, happy, or externally successful. To thrive, in the Stoic sense, is to pursue moral excellence. Health, wealth, and calm are not the measure. Character is. I make a distinction between the Stoic sage and the rest of us. A sage could flourish in any environment, but most of us are not sages. Environments shape the range of choices available to us. While our surroundings cannot force us to act viciously, they can limit what just and reasonable options are open to us. Poor environments narrow choice. Better environments expand it. From that, I argue that changing your environment can be a Stoic obligation, not a failure of resilience. If a situation consistently restricts your ability to live out your roles well, whether as a parent, partner, or moral agent, then leaving or changing that environment may be the just choice, provided it is done without abandoning responsibilities or harming others. Stoic endurance is not passive tolerance of harm. It is rational engagement with reality, including the reality that sometimes the right move is to change the soil, not blame the plant. Listening on Spotify? Leave a comment! Share your thoughts. Podcast artwork by Original Randy: https://www.originalrandy.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Transcribe →Seneca: Avoiding Crowds and Group Think
Jan 1100:22:06Tap to summarizeI am a public philosopher, it is my only job. I am enabled to do this job, in large part, thanks to support from my listeners and readers. You can support my work, keep it independent and online, at https://stoicismpod.com/members Looking for more Stoic content? Consider my 3x/week newsletter "Stoic Brekkie": https://stoicbrekkie.com In this episode, I revisit Seneca, a Stoic who often gets dismissed because of his wealth and his close relationship with Nero. I argue that these compromises do not disqualify him as a Stoic, and that he may, in fact, have been one of the most Stoic Roman thinkers precisely because he was aware of his flaws and struggled against them. I introduce and reflect on Seneca’s letter On Crowds, focusing on his warning that being around the wrong people can quietly undo our moral progress. Seneca admits that he often returns home worse than when he left, more indulgent, more ambitious, and more cruel, simply because he has been among others. I connect this to modern experiences of habit, addiction, and relapse, especially how difficult it is to maintain self-control when surrounded by people who excuse or celebrate the very behaviors we are trying to leave behind. I discuss how habits are formed through repetition, how crowds can weaken our resolve by offering permission and comfort, and why leaving unhealthy environments often comes at the cost of strained relationships. I also emphasize that anyone who has successfully changed a destructive habit deserves real admiration, because reversing habituated behavior requires extraordinary effort. Finally, I qualify Seneca’s position. While crowds driven by vice and groupthink are dangerous, not all crowds are. What we should avoid are antisocial and unjust groups, not communities of people sincerely trying to improve. The goal is to surround ourselves with those who want our moral progress and to be that person for others who are earlier on the path. Listening on Spotify? Leave a comment! Share your thoughts. Voice actor used was Sarah Kempton, her portfolio can be found here: https://www.sarahkempton.com Podcast artwork by Original Randy: https://www.originalrandy.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Transcribe →
✅ 2026 Audience Survey
Jan 700:02:17Tap to summarizeThis one is incredibly valuable to me, folks. Your answers will help me succeed this year. Please fill this out! Survey is here: https://stoicismpod.com/audience Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Transcribe →