I have been called “stoic” on more than one occasion. I suppose that’s understandable, though my outwardly subdued demeanor belies the relatively high amplitude tides of my inner emotional experience.

I might look stoic, but I often don’t feel stoic.

Still, though it is based on assumptions about me that are at best incomplete and at worst untrue, I am not offended by that characterization. Given the recently increased interest in capital “S” Stoicism, it might even be a compliment.

One might feel similarly ambivalent at being called "skeptical." After all, we should all adopt a healthy level of skepticism, shouldn’t we?

If referred to as "cynical," however, most people would not understand it as flattery, and "hedonistic" would be an outright insult.

Modern English

We inherit these modern descriptors from ancient philosophies. Hedonism and Cynicism originated in Greece during the Classical Period (5th–4th century BCE) alongside the work of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.

Informed by these earlier ideas, Stoicism and Skepticism blossomed during the Hellenistic Period, the three centuries beginning with the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BCE and ending with Cleopatra's demise in 30 BCE.

As one would expect, the meaning of the words stoic, skeptical, cynical, and hedonistic drifted in unpredictable directions during the intervening two-thousand-year, multilingual game of telephone that has transpired between then and now.

Today, most people have a visceral sense of their meaning, but let’s be specific and consult the dictionary. As adjectives, their definitions are:

• stoic: not affected by or showing passion or feeling; especially: firmly restraining response to pain or distress
• skeptical: having an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object; unwillingness to believe without conclusive evidence
• cynical: contemptuously distrustful of human nature and motives; based on or reflecting a belief that human conduct is motivated primarily by self-interest
• hedonistic: devoted to the pursuit of pleasure; implies the negative judgment that a person is selfish, indulgent, or pursues debauchery

That is now, but what was then? Were Stoics stoic? Would Hedonists have recognized themselves in The Wolf of Wall Street?

Ancient Greek

You have likely heard of Seneca or Marcus Aurelius—Romans who embraced and developed Greek Stoicism. Their voluminous writings have helped us gain a deep understanding of Stoic philosophy.

For many, the word “epicurean” might bring fine dining to mind, and you could probably guess that a Greek guy named Epicurus was involved, without knowing that Epicurean philosophy is a branch of Hedonism.

Less familiar are names like Diogenes (Cynicism) and Pyrrho (Skepticism).

We know what the modern terms mean, but what did these ancient philosophers and their adherents actually believe?

Hedonism

Ancient Hedonists believed in moderation, simplicity, and the value of deep relationships.

Not exactly the spring-break-in-Cancun image of hedonism evoked by our modern definition, is it?

The practitioners of Hedonist philosophy thought that seeking pleasure was virtuous, but they did not believe it could be found through excess and indulgence. Instead, they worked to understand human desires and let go of unnecessary fears—including our anxiety about death.

Cynicism

Cynics, it turns out, were not very cynical when measured against today’s less-than-flattering implication. They believed that humans are capable of goodness and virtue, but that we are led astray by misguided cultural norms and the temptation to seek power, wealth, and fame.

They saw bad ideas, not bad people, as the root of the problem.

Though they often employed humor, satire, and radical honesty—a legacy that survives in our contemporary connotation—the Cynics argued that by rejecting these corrupting influences, people could reclaim their natural capacity for virtue and live in harmony with nature.

Skepticism

The Skeptics did not go around full of doubt, seeking evidence to debunk the claims of others. Instead, they argued that knowledge was unattainable altogether—including their own knowledge about the unattainability of knowledge.

By releasing judgments, accepting uncertainty, and freeing themselves from dogmatic beliefs, they hoped to gain a clear, undisturbed mind.

Stoicism

The modern definition of "stoic" implies suppression of emotions, especially negative and painful ones, but to deny the reality of emotions would have been antithetical to an ancient Stoic.

Thus, while Epictetus or Marcus Aurelius might have appeared outwardly unemotional, their equanimity was achieved through wisdom and self-mastery, not denial.

In essence, Stoicism is about emotional intelligence—acknowledging emotions, understanding their roots, and managing them constructively to align with virtue and reason, carefully distinguishing what they could control from what they could not.

Philosophy 101, Class Dismissed

As interesting as that might be—to me, anyway—this is not intended to be a lesson in philosophy.

It can’t be. In trying to summarize these philosophical schools in a few paragraphs, I've necessarily stripped away the context, depth, nuance, and diversity of their actual beliefs.

The original Stoics, Skeptics, Cynics, and Hedonists spent lifetimes developing, debating, and refining complex philosophical frameworks. To truly grasp their ideas requires dedicated study.

If you want to really understand the thinking of these ancient philosophers, the details matter.

The same applies today. We all have a habit of reducing the complex beliefs of others to convenient labels. But just as "hedonistic" fails to capture the thoughtful moderation of ancient Hedonism, our quick categorization of others rarely reflects the real complexity of their sense-making.

You don’t have to spend hours poring over philosophy textbooks, but you do have to be equally dedicated to deep listening, because if you really want to understand how other people make sense of the world, the details matter.

Four Sides of the Same Tetrahedron*

Looking deeper still, in these four philosophies, we find one of life’s many dialectics: In all their differences, they are also the same.

Like all philosophy before and since, they sought to understand three fundamental aspects of human experience: metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.

These terms need not be intimidating. They are just fancy names for the very big questions people have been asking since there were people around to ask:

1. What is the nature of reality? (Metaphysics)
2. How do we know what we know? (Epistemology)
3. How should we live? (Ethics)

In these questions, the important details of our many different belief systems recede and we find our sameness.

Behind our messy, irrational, self-contradicting, maddening, imperfect, beautiful behavior, people are mostly just trying to make sense of the world, live a good life, and be happy.

If we start with that basic assumption, the hard work of deep listening gets a lot easier.

Until next time,

Greg

P.S. You know who is truly committed to deep listening and helping others make sense of the world? We are!

Create a starter account and schedule a free introductory session to learn more.

* Imagine my nerdy delight upon learning that the tetrahedron is one of the five "Platonic solids," the others being the cube, octahedron, dodecahedron, and icosahedron. The ancient Greeks were busy!