Massimo Pigliucci
Author of How to Be a Stoic: Using Ancient Philosophy to Live a Modern Life
About the Author
Massimo Pigliucci is the K. D. Irani Professor of Philosophy at the City College of New York. He is the author, editor, or coeditor of many books, including How to Be a Stoic: Using Ancient Philosophy to Live a Modern Life and, most recently. Science Unlimited? The Challenges of Scientism, the show more latter also published by the University of Chicago Press. show less
Works by Massimo Pigliucci
A Handbook for New Stoics: How to Thrive in a World Out of Your Control―52 Week-by-Week Lessons (2019) 254 copies
How to Live a Good Life: A Guide to Choosing Your Personal Philosophy (2020) — Editor; Introduction; Contributor — 161 copies, 2 reviews
Answers for Aristotle: How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to A More Meaningful Life (2012) 116 copies, 2 reviews
The Quest for Character: What the Story of Socrates and Alcibiades Teaches Us about Our Search for Good Leaders (2022) 73 copies, 1 review
Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem (2013) — Editor — 48 copies, 1 review
Beyond Stoicism: A Guide to the Good Life with Stoics, Skeptics, Epicureans, and Other Ancient Philosophers (2025) 29 copies, 3 reviews
Phenotypic Plasticity: Beyond Nature and Nurture (Syntheses in Ecology and Evolution) (2001) 17 copies
Live Like A Philosopher: What the Ancient Greeks and Romans Can Teach Us About Living a Happy Life (2025) 5 copies
The relevance of philosophy 1 copy
Cicero and Stoicism: Brief Introductions to De Finibus, Stoic Paradoxes, and Tusculan Disputations (2019) 1 copy
Нові стоїки 1 copy
Evolution - the Extended Synthesis [Paperback] [2010] New Ed. Massimo Pigliucci, Gerd B. Müller (2010) 1 copy
Saçmalığın Daniskası 1 copy
Endure and Renounce: 84 selected essays from the howtobeastoic.org blog (English Edition) (2019) 1 copy
Live Like a Stoic 1 copy
Tagged
Common Knowledge
- Birthdate
- 1964-01-16
- Gender
- male
- Education
- University of Ferrara
University of Connecticut
University of Tennessee - Occupations
- professor of philosophy
- Organizations
- City College of New York
- Short biography
- Prof. Massimo Pigliucci has a Doctorate in Genetics from the University of Ferrara (Italy), a PhD in Evolutionary Biology from the University of Connecticut, and a PhD in Philosophy from the University of Tennessee. He has done post-doctoral research in evolutionary ecology at Brown University and is currently the K.D. Irani Professor of Philosophy at the City College of New York. His research interests include the philosophy of biology, the relationship between science and philosophy, and the nature of pseudoscience.
Prof. Pigliucci has been elected fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science “for fundamental studies of genotype by environmental interactions and for public defense of evolutionary biology from pseudoscientific attack.”
In the area of public outreach, Prof. Pigliucci has published in national outlets such as the New York Times, Philosophy Now and The Philosopher’s Magazine among others. He is a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and a Contributing Editor to Skeptical Inquirer. Pigliucci edits the Scientia Salon web magazine (scientiasalon.org), devoted to getting his colleagues out of the Ivory Tower and engaging with Main Street.
At last count, Prof. Pigliucci has published 142 technical papers in science and philosophy. He is also the author or editor of 10 technical and public outreach books, most recently of Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem (University of Chicago Press), co-edited with Maarten Boudry. Other books include Answers for Aristotle: How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to a More Meaningful Life (Basic Books) and Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk (University of Chicago Press).
More information can be found at platofootnote.org.
http://rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/...
Members
Reviews
A philosophy of life is a considered set of principles by which one finds meaning, purpose, and coherence in the world. A philosophy of life contains an epistemology (what can be known), a metaphysics (how the world works), an ethical framework (how to behave and treat others), and variously a political philosophy that describes how society should be structured.
It is hard to live a morally worthwhile and meaningful life without some set of guiding principles and ideals, and this is perhaps show more why so many people feel lost in contemporary times. Religion doesn’t feel relevant anymore, yet philosophy is something most people are not exposed to unless they happen to stumble upon it by chance or by their own volition (philosophy is conspicuously absent in public education).
That’s what makes How to Live a Good Life potentially invaluable in today’s climate. The reader gains exposure to 15 ways of life that can provide the meaning, purpose, and coherence necessary to live productive and fulfilling lives. Each way of life is described by a prominent academic that—in addition to their academic qualifications—also identifies and practices the philosophy/religion. This makes for a fascinating read; instead of a series of encyclopedia entries, you get very personal accounts (without sacrificing scholarly rigor) of how each philosophy/religion brings meaning to each author’s life, providing an insider’s view of each subject.
Unfortunately, the book has a significant flaw that I can’t overlook (I tried). You’ll notice that the subtitle is A Guide to Choosing Your Personal Philosophy. Since I think the way that we use words matters, it is worth thinking more deeply about what the term philosophy actually means.
Philosophy has various definitions, but dictionary.com has a good one; it defines philosophy as “the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.” We can flesh out this definition by considering the history of the field. Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom via rational investigation that takes nothing for granted and provides arguments for its positions and conclusions. The key elements in philosophical reasoning are doubt, questioning, and especially the provision of arguments.
Now, I understand that religion presents a viable way of life for many people, but it is simply not philosophy. The philosopher A.C. Grayling said it best in his History of Philosophy:
“If the starting point for reflection is the acceptance of religious doctrine, then the reflection that follows is theology, or theodicy, or exegesis, or casuistry, or apologetics, or hermeneutics, but it is not philosophy.”
In the introduction of How to Live a Good Life, commenting on the various “philosophies” of life, the authors write, “To the degree that the metaphysics includes a significant reference to a transcendental reality, and particularly to a god or gods, that tradition falls more on the side of religion than philosophy, but that distinction is not crucial.”
What?? That distinction is not crucial? Are the authors really claiming that, if you believe that a personal god created the entire universe specifically for you and then revealed his plans in an ancient book, that this is not a relevant distinction between a field (philosophy) that is not supposed to take unargued positions for granted?
To clarify, if people want to be religious, that is their prerogative, but if you read the book, the section on religious traditions feels entirely out of place. Why? Because, unlike the chapters on philosophy (like Aristotelianism, Stoicism, Existentialism, etc.), the religious authors refuse to argue for their positions. Here are some examples.
On the chapter on Hinduism, Deepak Sarma writes, “When pressed on the issue of its origins or the location of karma, its ontological status, Hindus, even those professing the most systematic Hindu tradition, do not offer an explanation” Later, he writes, “Visnu is the actuator for the establishment of the universe, which is the location where karma can manifest....Beyond this Hindus neither ask, nor offer answers to, further metaphysical questions that arise from this belief ...This, like the lack of origins of karma, seems acceptable to me.” (I can’t help but think of Hitchens’ razor when I read this. As the late Christopher Hitchens said, "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.")
In the chapters on Judaism and Christianity, the authors describe why they think their respective religions are good for the world and how they provide meaningful narratives, but not why we should think they are true. Commenting on Christianity, Alister McGrath writes, “I shall make no attempt to defend or justify a Christian approach to meaning; my task here is simply to present and explore it.”
This sure does not seem to fit the bill of Socrates’ “examined life.” Taking for granted the ultimate origin and purpose of the entire universe is one big fat unargued assumption. And this isn’t humility, it’s the opposite; to think that your religion has conclusive answers to the most difficult problems known to man—and that you don’t even have to argue for its truth!—is actually hubris on the largest imaginable scale. This is why a general feeling of intellectual disingenuity pervades the chapters on religion.
I’ll reiterate, because I know I’ll be called out for what I’m not saying. People have the right to be religious and to form their own beliefs, and there are plenty of very good and decent religious individuals that contribute greatly to the community. But don’t call religion philosophy, because it is most certainly not, and this book creates the false impression that two distinct disciplines are the same when in fact they disagree in the deepest possible epistemological sense.
So I have very mixed feelings about this book. The essays on philosophy are generally well thought out and interesting, and even the essays on religion help to show how the religious mind works and why people tend to follow religions. So overall, it’s a fascinating book, and even if you identify more strongly with one way of life, you should be able to find useful insights from the teachings of the others.
You might, however, call into question the entire idea of choosing a personal philosophy in the sense of molding yourself to one particular doctrine. If the purpose of a life philosophy is living a good and meaningful life, then isn’t it more important to live by the principles that make the most sense to you—and deliver the most benefits—rather than trying to ensure that you are a “true” Stoic, Epicurean, or Christian?
This, I believe, is what Socrates was trying to tell us. No one has all the answers, and universal rules always have exceptions. We are limited and fallible, and the best we can do is examine our actions—not according to conformance to dogma or doctrine—but in accordance with our rational faculties that all humans share. We can select a general orientation to life, but not at the expense of surrendering our critical faculties to the conformity to orthodoxy. show less
It is hard to live a morally worthwhile and meaningful life without some set of guiding principles and ideals, and this is perhaps show more why so many people feel lost in contemporary times. Religion doesn’t feel relevant anymore, yet philosophy is something most people are not exposed to unless they happen to stumble upon it by chance or by their own volition (philosophy is conspicuously absent in public education).
That’s what makes How to Live a Good Life potentially invaluable in today’s climate. The reader gains exposure to 15 ways of life that can provide the meaning, purpose, and coherence necessary to live productive and fulfilling lives. Each way of life is described by a prominent academic that—in addition to their academic qualifications—also identifies and practices the philosophy/religion. This makes for a fascinating read; instead of a series of encyclopedia entries, you get very personal accounts (without sacrificing scholarly rigor) of how each philosophy/religion brings meaning to each author’s life, providing an insider’s view of each subject.
Unfortunately, the book has a significant flaw that I can’t overlook (I tried). You’ll notice that the subtitle is A Guide to Choosing Your Personal Philosophy. Since I think the way that we use words matters, it is worth thinking more deeply about what the term philosophy actually means.
Philosophy has various definitions, but dictionary.com has a good one; it defines philosophy as “the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.” We can flesh out this definition by considering the history of the field. Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom via rational investigation that takes nothing for granted and provides arguments for its positions and conclusions. The key elements in philosophical reasoning are doubt, questioning, and especially the provision of arguments.
Now, I understand that religion presents a viable way of life for many people, but it is simply not philosophy. The philosopher A.C. Grayling said it best in his History of Philosophy:
“If the starting point for reflection is the acceptance of religious doctrine, then the reflection that follows is theology, or theodicy, or exegesis, or casuistry, or apologetics, or hermeneutics, but it is not philosophy.”
In the introduction of How to Live a Good Life, commenting on the various “philosophies” of life, the authors write, “To the degree that the metaphysics includes a significant reference to a transcendental reality, and particularly to a god or gods, that tradition falls more on the side of religion than philosophy, but that distinction is not crucial.”
What?? That distinction is not crucial? Are the authors really claiming that, if you believe that a personal god created the entire universe specifically for you and then revealed his plans in an ancient book, that this is not a relevant distinction between a field (philosophy) that is not supposed to take unargued positions for granted?
To clarify, if people want to be religious, that is their prerogative, but if you read the book, the section on religious traditions feels entirely out of place. Why? Because, unlike the chapters on philosophy (like Aristotelianism, Stoicism, Existentialism, etc.), the religious authors refuse to argue for their positions. Here are some examples.
On the chapter on Hinduism, Deepak Sarma writes, “When pressed on the issue of its origins or the location of karma, its ontological status, Hindus, even those professing the most systematic Hindu tradition, do not offer an explanation” Later, he writes, “Visnu is the actuator for the establishment of the universe, which is the location where karma can manifest....Beyond this Hindus neither ask, nor offer answers to, further metaphysical questions that arise from this belief ...This, like the lack of origins of karma, seems acceptable to me.” (I can’t help but think of Hitchens’ razor when I read this. As the late Christopher Hitchens said, "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.")
In the chapters on Judaism and Christianity, the authors describe why they think their respective religions are good for the world and how they provide meaningful narratives, but not why we should think they are true. Commenting on Christianity, Alister McGrath writes, “I shall make no attempt to defend or justify a Christian approach to meaning; my task here is simply to present and explore it.”
This sure does not seem to fit the bill of Socrates’ “examined life.” Taking for granted the ultimate origin and purpose of the entire universe is one big fat unargued assumption. And this isn’t humility, it’s the opposite; to think that your religion has conclusive answers to the most difficult problems known to man—and that you don’t even have to argue for its truth!—is actually hubris on the largest imaginable scale. This is why a general feeling of intellectual disingenuity pervades the chapters on religion.
I’ll reiterate, because I know I’ll be called out for what I’m not saying. People have the right to be religious and to form their own beliefs, and there are plenty of very good and decent religious individuals that contribute greatly to the community. But don’t call religion philosophy, because it is most certainly not, and this book creates the false impression that two distinct disciplines are the same when in fact they disagree in the deepest possible epistemological sense.
So I have very mixed feelings about this book. The essays on philosophy are generally well thought out and interesting, and even the essays on religion help to show how the religious mind works and why people tend to follow religions. So overall, it’s a fascinating book, and even if you identify more strongly with one way of life, you should be able to find useful insights from the teachings of the others.
You might, however, call into question the entire idea of choosing a personal philosophy in the sense of molding yourself to one particular doctrine. If the purpose of a life philosophy is living a good and meaningful life, then isn’t it more important to live by the principles that make the most sense to you—and deliver the most benefits—rather than trying to ensure that you are a “true” Stoic, Epicurean, or Christian?
This, I believe, is what Socrates was trying to tell us. No one has all the answers, and universal rules always have exceptions. We are limited and fallible, and the best we can do is examine our actions—not according to conformance to dogma or doctrine—but in accordance with our rational faculties that all humans share. We can select a general orientation to life, but not at the expense of surrendering our critical faculties to the conformity to orthodoxy. show less
Beyond Stoicism: A Guide to the Good Life with Stoics, Skeptics, Epicureans, and Other Ancient Philosophers by Massimo Pigliucci
While I generally tend to be a more charitable reviewer, some things are hard to overlook. To see where I’m going with this review, compare the following two quotes, one from a prominent ancient Stoic, and one from a modern one, the book’s author.
First, Epictetus:
“The philosopher's school, ye men, is a surgery: you ought not to go out of it with pleasure, but with pain. For you are not in sound health when you enter.” — Epictetus
Next, the book’s author:
“Please don’t let the show more word ‘philosophies’ scare you off. There will be no final exam, no multiple-choice questions asking you to name that philosopher or when he or she was born and died. Instead, we’ll use the best of ancient ideas as a compass to find a new path forward today, one with a sense of purpose and intentionality.” — Massimo Pigliucci
See the difference?
Philosophy is supposed to be difficult; it challenges you, it demands high standards of thought and action. It is not supposed to be pleasant, easy, or convenient; its aim is to test your beliefs and change your life for the better, but only after an initial period of discomfort and struggle. Epicteuts understood this.
How about this book’s author? The opposite. He wants to coddle you through the subject in the gentlest possible manner, presenting philosophy, not as the challenge it should be, but as a cheapened form of painless self help. It would be like your personal trainer telling you not to be scared off by weights.
There is, of course, an argument to be made for popularizing important subjects. If this book stimulates interest in a non-intimidating way, and helps people live more thoughtfully, if not quite philosophically, then what’s the harm?
It’s a valid point, but I don’t think this should come at the expense of rigor; otherwise, it can give someone the wrong impression that they deeply understand a subject that they can only superficially grasp. And wasn’t that the danger, after all, that Socrates fought against his entire life?
As for the book itself, the less charitable side of me wants to say it consists of nothing other than a series of cliche-filled, uninventive encyclopedia entries. That’s probably a bit harsh, but not much. If you’re familiar with the material, you’ll get why I’m saying this.
I don’t want to say, however, that the book is all bad. Here are some of the good parts.
First, it promotes the concept of eclecticism. As the authors wrote:
“We don’t think there is sufficient evidence to believe that a single philosophy of life is a natural fit for everyone. Rather, we believe that different philosophies are suitable for different people, based on their individual personalities and backgrounds. It’s even possible that combining aspects of various philosophies could be the best approach for you.”
Eclecticism is generally a good thing, as it prevents you from slavishly and mindlessly following a single school or individual that may not necessarily fit your personality or specific circumstances. Cultivating the best ideas from several places is, in fact, how Stoicism itself got started. You would probably be wise to do the same.
Second, the book does cover some lesser-known philosophers, even for those who have been studying the subject for a while. I’d be pretty impressed, for example, if you already knew a lot about Aristippus, Stilpo, or Hipparchia. In that sense, you’re bound to learn something new here.
And third, the book provides guidance on how to apply the lessons of each school of thought to your life; you’ll learn how to better appreciate and control physical pleasure, how to develop your character and mental resilience, and how to think more critically about a host of topics.
Whatever your personality or inclinations, you’re bound to find something useful. Do you like flouting convention and making people feel uncomfortable? Try out philosophical Cynicism. Do you like guilt-free sex and overindulgence in food? You’ll probably love the chapter of Cyrenaicism. Or do you believe that your dog may contain the transmigrated soul of an old friend? Then Pythagoreansim might be right for you.
The bottom line is that it’s hard for me to recommend this book to all but the most inexperienced reader of philosophy. But even then, there are better and more challenging reads. And challenging yourself is not a bad thing. Try, for example, Philosophy and Life: Exploring the Great Questions of How to Live by AC Grayling or Philosophy as a Way of Life by Pierre Hadot. show less
First, Epictetus:
“The philosopher's school, ye men, is a surgery: you ought not to go out of it with pleasure, but with pain. For you are not in sound health when you enter.” — Epictetus
Next, the book’s author:
“Please don’t let the show more word ‘philosophies’ scare you off. There will be no final exam, no multiple-choice questions asking you to name that philosopher or when he or she was born and died. Instead, we’ll use the best of ancient ideas as a compass to find a new path forward today, one with a sense of purpose and intentionality.” — Massimo Pigliucci
See the difference?
Philosophy is supposed to be difficult; it challenges you, it demands high standards of thought and action. It is not supposed to be pleasant, easy, or convenient; its aim is to test your beliefs and change your life for the better, but only after an initial period of discomfort and struggle. Epicteuts understood this.
How about this book’s author? The opposite. He wants to coddle you through the subject in the gentlest possible manner, presenting philosophy, not as the challenge it should be, but as a cheapened form of painless self help. It would be like your personal trainer telling you not to be scared off by weights.
There is, of course, an argument to be made for popularizing important subjects. If this book stimulates interest in a non-intimidating way, and helps people live more thoughtfully, if not quite philosophically, then what’s the harm?
It’s a valid point, but I don’t think this should come at the expense of rigor; otherwise, it can give someone the wrong impression that they deeply understand a subject that they can only superficially grasp. And wasn’t that the danger, after all, that Socrates fought against his entire life?
As for the book itself, the less charitable side of me wants to say it consists of nothing other than a series of cliche-filled, uninventive encyclopedia entries. That’s probably a bit harsh, but not much. If you’re familiar with the material, you’ll get why I’m saying this.
I don’t want to say, however, that the book is all bad. Here are some of the good parts.
First, it promotes the concept of eclecticism. As the authors wrote:
“We don’t think there is sufficient evidence to believe that a single philosophy of life is a natural fit for everyone. Rather, we believe that different philosophies are suitable for different people, based on their individual personalities and backgrounds. It’s even possible that combining aspects of various philosophies could be the best approach for you.”
Eclecticism is generally a good thing, as it prevents you from slavishly and mindlessly following a single school or individual that may not necessarily fit your personality or specific circumstances. Cultivating the best ideas from several places is, in fact, how Stoicism itself got started. You would probably be wise to do the same.
Second, the book does cover some lesser-known philosophers, even for those who have been studying the subject for a while. I’d be pretty impressed, for example, if you already knew a lot about Aristippus, Stilpo, or Hipparchia. In that sense, you’re bound to learn something new here.
And third, the book provides guidance on how to apply the lessons of each school of thought to your life; you’ll learn how to better appreciate and control physical pleasure, how to develop your character and mental resilience, and how to think more critically about a host of topics.
Whatever your personality or inclinations, you’re bound to find something useful. Do you like flouting convention and making people feel uncomfortable? Try out philosophical Cynicism. Do you like guilt-free sex and overindulgence in food? You’ll probably love the chapter of Cyrenaicism. Or do you believe that your dog may contain the transmigrated soul of an old friend? Then Pythagoreansim might be right for you.
The bottom line is that it’s hard for me to recommend this book to all but the most inexperienced reader of philosophy. But even then, there are better and more challenging reads. And challenging yourself is not a bad thing. Try, for example, Philosophy and Life: Exploring the Great Questions of How to Live by AC Grayling or Philosophy as a Way of Life by Pierre Hadot. show less
How to Be a Stoic is a fine introduction to the philosophy and practice of Stoicism. If I were a relative blank slate and wished to mold my beliefs and choices to a philosophy, Stoicism would be close to the best fit for me. I also realized while reading that I've been doing a lot of this for the past 20+ years anyway. Only I wasn't focused solely on Stoicism. I've long been sampling the philosophies of the world and molding my... self, or sharpening the 'what I believe in' part of my mind, show more in the natural course of living and being introspective for the entirety of my adult life.
This introduction to Stoicism was worth checking out from a historical perspective but much of the practical stuff I already do without knowing I was very much a Stoic at heart. Still, it's good to be able to describe what I've come to understand as valuable skills for living. show less
This introduction to Stoicism was worth checking out from a historical perspective but much of the practical stuff I already do without knowing I was very much a Stoic at heart. Still, it's good to be able to describe what I've come to understand as valuable skills for living. show less
Stoicism is an ancient philosophical practice that originated in Greece. Author Massimo Pigliucci writes of the teachings of his favorite Stoic Master, Epictetus, doing his best to give it modern context and applications. This is not a difficult task since a lot of issues that bothered the Ancient Greeks annoy and pester us to this day.
While Pigliucci prefers the Stoic practices of Epictetus, he is quick to point out that there are other Philosophies out there. The author mainly focuses on show more Western Philosophy since that is what he is most familiar with, but he also brings up Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, and others that might be better for you.
So this book was really enjoyable, but it is also quite humbling since I can see my own foibles present in the virtues of Stoicism. It works as a strange dichotomy because it is easy to know what to do. The problem is calming your knee-jerk reaction to events that happen. Sure I could get angry at the driver that just cut me off, but what is the purpose of the anger? In the end, you only hurt yourself and your own personal development. In this case, I find myself acting out impulsively even when I know I shouldn’t.
In the final section of the book, we find specific advice on how to be a more virtuous person. A lot of this advice is quite welcome to me. For instance, chances are that you have met someone who gossips. This isn’t even limited to having to talk to someone; go to your local Grocery Store and just look at all the inane babble that is printed. Oh no, a baby vomited on Tom Cruise. Look at that, a Kardashian did something. Who cares? It’s all the same in that sort of garbage. I know I live under a rock in a lot of ways since the news depresses me, but it has good advice on that sort of thing too. When someone murders a school full of innocent children, it is easy to call that person evil and wish terrible things upon them. However, Stoicism is a bit like Christianity in that it tells you to hate the crime and not the criminal. Condemn the sin, not the sinner. This is an interesting idea and probably the most difficult thing to do.
Anyway, this book was really good. I enjoyed reading it and would heartily recommend it if you are interested in Stoic Philosophy and personal development. show less
While Pigliucci prefers the Stoic practices of Epictetus, he is quick to point out that there are other Philosophies out there. The author mainly focuses on show more Western Philosophy since that is what he is most familiar with, but he also brings up Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, and others that might be better for you.
So this book was really enjoyable, but it is also quite humbling since I can see my own foibles present in the virtues of Stoicism. It works as a strange dichotomy because it is easy to know what to do. The problem is calming your knee-jerk reaction to events that happen. Sure I could get angry at the driver that just cut me off, but what is the purpose of the anger? In the end, you only hurt yourself and your own personal development. In this case, I find myself acting out impulsively even when I know I shouldn’t.
In the final section of the book, we find specific advice on how to be a more virtuous person. A lot of this advice is quite welcome to me. For instance, chances are that you have met someone who gossips. This isn’t even limited to having to talk to someone; go to your local Grocery Store and just look at all the inane babble that is printed. Oh no, a baby vomited on Tom Cruise. Look at that, a Kardashian did something. Who cares? It’s all the same in that sort of garbage. I know I live under a rock in a lot of ways since the news depresses me, but it has good advice on that sort of thing too. When someone murders a school full of innocent children, it is easy to call that person evil and wish terrible things upon them. However, Stoicism is a bit like Christianity in that it tells you to hate the crime and not the criminal. Condemn the sin, not the sinner. This is an interesting idea and probably the most difficult thing to do.
Anyway, this book was really good. I enjoyed reading it and would heartily recommend it if you are interested in Stoic Philosophy and personal development. show less
Lists
Awards
You May Also Like
Associated Authors
Statistics
- Works
- 50
- Members
- 2,092
- Popularity
- #12,302
- Rating
- 3.8
- Reviews
- 40
- ISBNs
- 102
- Languages
- 8
