Apply for private coaching: https://stoicismpod.com/apply

Support this podcast financially: https://stoicismpod.com/members

Episode Summary:

In this episode, I explore why so many of us stay stuck for years—even when we genuinely want to change—and why Stoicism, while powerful, is often only one part of the solution.

I begin by sharing an update on my coaching practice and explain why one-on-one philosophical coaching has become the most rewarding work I've ever done. Working directly with people has reinforced something I've long believed: lasting change rarely comes from information alone. It comes from changing the way we habitually choose.

From there, I examine how our early experiences shape our patterns of judgment and behavior. Children learn quickly, but they also absorb unhealthy habits before their rational faculties are mature enough to question them. Those habits can become deeply ingrained ways of navigating the world, remaining with us well into adulthood.

I argue that overcoming these patterns usually requires more than willpower. Therapy can help us understand where our habits came from. Stoicism provides a framework for deciding what to do with that understanding. In some cases, appropriate medical treatment may also be an important part of recovery. Rather than competing with one another, these approaches can work together.

The central message is simple: if you've been struggling with the same problem for years without making meaningful progress, it may not be because you're incapable of change. It may simply be that your current strategy is incomplete.

Listening on Spotify? Leave a comment! I'd love to hear which ideas resonated with you most.

In this episode, I explore procrastination from a Stoic perspective and argue that it isn't a problem of laziness—it's a problem of judgment.

Drawing on Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, and my own experience with ADHD, I explain why we often mistake temporary discomfort for a good reason to delay action. We tell ourselves we'll start when we feel ready, but readiness is rarely something we possess before beginning. More often, it's something we discover after we've already started.

I discuss Seneca's reminder that time is the only thing we truly possess, and Marcus Aurelius' advice to stop waiting for motivation and instead remember what we are made to do as human beings. The Stoics didn't believe motivation came first. They believed right judgment came first.

I also talk about procrastination and ADHD. While ADHD can make starting tasks significantly more difficult, it doesn't remove our capacity to choose well. It simply means some of us have a denser forest to cut through before we can begin moving. That reality calls for better strategies, not despair.

Finally, I share the surprisingly simple tool that has helped me overcome procrastination in my own life: externalising the consequences of inaction. By making the impact of procrastination visible, I stop seeing the task as something that's merely uncomfortable for me and start seeing how my delay affects the people I'm trying to serve.

To make that process easier, I've built a free interactive procrastination tool that walks you through the same decision-making process I use myself. You can find it at https://procrastination.tannerocampbell.com

Listening on Spotify? Leave a comment! I'd love to know what causes you to procrastinate and what strategies have helped you overcome it.

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 weekly newsletter Stoic Brekkie: ⁠https://stoicbrekkie.com⁠

Overcome decision-making anxiety in 14-days: https://anxiety.tannerocampbell.com

In this episode, I explore why criticism from other people affects us so deeply—and why, from a Stoic perspective, it often shouldn't.

The episode begins with a chance encounter in a Starbucks that led me to reflect on something many of us experience: the discomfort of feeling judged. Whether it's criticism from a stranger, a colleague, or someone we care about, our first reaction is usually emotional. The Stoics understood this well. They knew that our initial emotional response isn't something we choose—but what we do next absolutely is.

Drawing on Epictetus, I explain the difference between our immediate, instinctive reaction and the rational faculty that follows it. The goal isn't to become emotionally numb. It's to become better at examining criticism before accepting it.

I offer a simple question that has helped me navigate criticism more effectively:

Is this pointing to something I genuinely did badly, or is it simply someone else's verdict on something I believe I handled well?

If the criticism is true, it becomes an opportunity for improvement. If it isn't, then there's no reason to surrender your peace of mind to another person's opinion.

The Stoic isn't indifferent to what others think. Rather, the Stoic refuses to allow unexamined opinions to outweigh honest self-knowledge.

The challenge isn't to stop caring about people. It's to stop auditioning for them.

Listening on Spotify? Leave a comment! I'd love to hear how you handle criticism and whether you've found it difficult to separate useful feedback from mere opinion.

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

Get the archives: https://www.stoicismpod.com/the-archive/

In this episode, I explore what overthinking actually is from a Stoic perspective—and why most advice about it misses the point.

We often think we're "thinking things through" when we're lying awake replaying conversations, imagining worst-case scenarios, or rehearsing events that haven't happened. But I argue that this isn't really thinking at all. It's rumination: a failure of assent disguised as diligence.

Drawing on Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, and Seneca, I explain how the Stoics distinguished between a bare impression (phantasia) and the stories we immediately build on top of it. The problem isn't the initial impression. The problem is our habit of treating our imagined conclusions as though they were facts.

I also distinguish careful Stoic deliberation from rumination. Deliberation moves toward a reasoned decision and an available action. Rumination simply replays the same impression, generating anxiety without producing clarity.

To make this practical, I introduce a simple two-question framework you can use whenever you catch yourself overthinking:

1. What does the bare impression actually say?
2. Is there an action available to me right now?

If there is, take it. If there isn't, you're probably rehearsing rather than reasoning.

The goal isn't to stop your mind from producing impressions. It's to become better at recognising when your imagination has taken over and returning your attention to reality.

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 work, in large part, thanks to support from my listeners and readers. You can support my work, keep it independent, and help keep it online at ⁠https://stoicismpod.com/members⁠.

Looking for more Stoic content? Consider subscribing to my 3x/week newsletter, Stoic Brekkie: ⁠https://stoicbrekkie.com⁠.

Apply for private mentoring: https://tannerocampbell.com/apply

Support my work: https://stoicismpod.com/members

Subscribe to my newsletter: https://stoicbrekkie.com

In this episode I'm tackling the thing nobody wants me to tackle: politics. Before you run away, I promise I'm not endorsing anyone or anything. What I'm interested in is how a Stoic engages politically, not who a Stoic votes for. I get into whether Stoics should vote at all (in most cases, yes, because Stoics are pro-social and voting is one way we attempt to benefit the human community), and I share why I've abstained from local US elections since leaving the country in 2023, and why I won't be voting in Scotland right away once we move there.

I also spend a good chunk of this episode on how we talk about our neighbours who vote differently than we do. People assent to the choices they believe are appropriate for them, and flattening someone's reasons into "they must be stupid or evil" is both practically counterproductive and, drawing on Epictetus, deeply un-Stoic, because we cannot truly know the judgements and contexts of minds that aren't our own. From there I look at protest. The Stoic Opposition proved Stoics can stand against tyranny with real force, so protest isn't off the table, but the why matters more than the what. And finally I ask whether we've let politics become a pathos rather than a civic duty, an identity that crowds out our actual identity as Prokoptôn.

Also in this episode: an update on Stoic Brekkie by Post (the 50-person beta filled up fast, thank you), and news that I'm building a little Stoicism educational video game, because apparently your Stoicism guy needed another creative outlet.

Engage. It's your duty. But engage well.

Thanks for listening.

Learn more about Stoic Brekkie by post here: https://stoicbrekkie.com/p/stoic-brekkie-is-returning-with-an-analogue-twist

Register your interest in Stoic Brekkie by post here: https://bypost.stoicbrekkie.com

------

In this episode, I talk about parenting, exhaustion, frustration, and the very real challenge of remaining Stoic when your emotional battery is running on empty.

Stoic Mentoring: https://tannerocampbell.com/mentoring

Sunday 7th Webinar: https://stoictalks.uk/june-cosmology

Using a story from my own 43rd birthday, I walk through a morning that did not go according to plan. What I wanted was a peaceful day. What I got was a very normal morning with a two-year-old child who wanted things his way, struggled to communicate those wants clearly, and repeatedly tested my patience.

The story revolves around a simple trip to a café that gradually became a lesson in expectations, frustration, entitlement, and emotional regulation.

The deeper lesson is not really about toddlers. It's about the stories we tell ourselves.

I had convinced myself that my birthday entitled me to a peaceful day. Rationally, I knew that wasn't true. But emotionally, I had quietly bought into the idea anyway. That expectation became the source of much of my frustration.

From there, I explore several Stoic lessons:

• Managing expectations before frustration takes hold.
• Recognizing when we're running our emotional batteries too low.
• Understanding that self-care is not selfishness.
• Appreciating how much children learn from our behavior, especially when we're angry.
• Recognizing the difference between discipline and rage.

I spend particular time discussing the impression we leave on our children. Children are constantly watching us. Every outburst, every moment of patience, every act of self-control becomes part of the example we set for them.

A parent losing their temper doesn't just solve a problem poorly in the moment—it can shape how a child understands relationships, authority, safety, and emotional expression for years to come.

I also argue that many parents wait far too long to recharge. We run ourselves into the ground, then expect one special day, one holiday, or one break to somehow restore everything. That's not sustainable.

The Stoic approach is much simpler: maintain the battery before it reaches zero.

Even a single hour each week dedicated to rest, reflection, reading, walking, or simply being alone can dramatically improve our ability to show up well for the people who depend on us.

The central message of the episode is this: parenting is hard, and perfection is impossible. But we can dramatically reduce the likelihood of losing our tempers by managing our expectations, protecting our own wellbeing, and remembering that our children are always learning from how we choose to respond.

Listening on Spotify? Leave a comment! Share your thoughts.

In this episode, I talk about heat, irritability, anger, and why being physically uncomfortable can quietly erode our Stoic practice if we’re not paying attention.

First, an announcement: after years of being asked, I’m officially opening applications for 1:1 Stoic mentoring and life coaching. This is a six-month mentorship for people who are serious about applying Stoicism deeply and consistently in their lives. It includes weekly calls, structured curriculum, support between sessions, and a small accountability group. I explain who it’s for, what’s included, and how to apply.

Apply for 1:1 mentoring here: https://tannerocampbell.com/apply

The core topic of the episode, though, is anger — specifically how heat and physical discomfort make anger far more likely.

I draw heavily from Seneca’s On Anger, where he describes anger as a kind of temporary madness: a passion that overrides reason, destroys judgment, and pushes people toward destructive choices they later regret. I connect this to modern psychological research showing that heat increases irritability, hostility, and aggression.

The basic point is straightforward: when we’re physically uncomfortable, our threshold for frustration lowers dramatically. Small provocations escalate faster. We become less patient, less reflective, and more likely to lash out.

But rather than treating this as an excuse, I frame it as a call for preparation.

A Stoic does not pretend the body doesn’t matter. The Stoic prepares rationally for predictable challenges. If you know extreme heat affects your mood and judgment, then planning ahead becomes part of your moral responsibility.

I walk through some practical examples from my own life living in the UK during a heatwave:

• Buying bags of ice in advance.
• Staying hydrated constantly.
• Having contingency plans for cooler environments.
• Saving for a long-term cooling solution.
• Refusing to indulge self-pity or dramatics about discomfort.

The point is not “be tough.” The point is “be prepared.”

I argue that failing to prepare for predictable discomfort is itself a failure of Stoic practice because it unnecessarily increases the risk that we’ll act irrationally toward ourselves or others.

The Sage would not ignore heat to prove toughness. The Sage would plan, prepare, adapt, and endure intelligently.

That’s the real lesson of the episode: Stoicism isn’t about pretending external conditions don’t affect us. It’s about anticipating their effects and choosing wisely despite them.

---

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

---

Subscribe to A Little Wiser, a newsletter which explores philosophy more broadly than Stoicism and publishes multiple times a week.

Support my work for as little as £0.87/wk: https://stoicismpod.com/members

--

In this episode, I lay out a practical, step-by-step Stoic framework for making decisions well.

A lot of people interested in Stoicism know the quotes, know the terminology, and understand the broad concepts — but when an actual difficult choice appears in front of them, they still don’t know what to do. This episode is about solving that problem.

I begin by making a distinction the Stoics took very seriously: the difference between wanting something and determining whether something is right. Most difficult decisions are not difficult because we don’t know what we desire, but because we’re uncertain what action accords with virtue and reason.

From there, I walk through an orthodox Stoic decision-making method rooted in Panaetius and preserved through Cicero’s De Officiis.

The process begins with examining what the Stoics understood to be the four roles every human being occupies simultaneously:

• Our universal human nature as rational beings bound by the virtues.
• Our individual nature — our temperament, strengths, and weaknesses.
• Our circumstantial roles — parent, child, citizen, employee, neighbour.
• Our chosen roles — career, projects, commitments, ambitions.

I use a detailed example throughout the episode: a person deciding whether to take a major overseas promotion while also caring for an aging mother whose health is declining.

The key Stoic insight is this: the right action is usually found at the intersection of all four roles. Most modern ethical thinking frames difficult choices as trade-offs, but Stoicism instead asks us to search for the action that satisfies all our legitimate roles without violating virtue.

I then explain the “tragic conflict clause” — what to do when no intersection seems possible. In those cases, the Stoics held that lower-order roles must be abandoned before virtue itself is compromised.

After identifying a candidate action, I introduce three tests the Stoics would apply:

• The rational defence test: can you clearly explain why the action is right?
• The sage test: would a genuinely wise person choose this?
• The role-fidelity test: does the action honour your responsibilities regardless of what others do?

Finally, I discuss the importance of post-action review — what the Stoics called prokopē, or progress. Stoic character is built not through perfect choices, but through repeated examination, correction, and refinement over time.

The core point of the episode is simple: Stoicism is not passive inspiration or emotional comfort. It is a disciplined framework for reasoning through life well and choosing in alignment with nature, virtue, and our roles.

Listening on Spotify? Leave a comment! Share your thoughts.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, I take aim at what I call “stoa shaming”—the habit of pointing out someone’s failure to be perfectly Stoic as a way of dismissing both them and the philosophy.

You’ve seen it. Someone loses their temper, struggles with their weight, or makes a mistake, and the response is: “That’s not very Stoic of you.” On the surface, it sounds like a call to higher standards. In reality, it reveals a misunderstanding of Stoicism itself.

Stoicism does not expect perfection from its practitioners. It defines perfection—sagehood—as something effectively unattainable. The Sage is a theoretical ideal: someone who never errs in judgment, never assents incorrectly, and never acts viciously. That’s not us. That’s not anyone.

What we are, instead, are prokoptôns—progressors. People in motion. People practicing.

This matters because if you misunderstand Stoicism as requiring perfection, then every mistake becomes evidence of failure, and every practitioner becomes a hypocrite. That’s the logic behind stoa shaming. It reduces a philosophy of progress into a brittle standard no one can meet.

But Stoicism isn’t a label you “achieve.” It’s a framework you use. Saying “I’m a Stoic” doesn’t mean you embody perfect virtue. It means you’re attempting to move toward it using Stoic principles.

That means mistakes aren’t contradictions of the philosophy—they are the condition under which the philosophy is practiced.

When someone says, “That’s not very Stoic of you,” what they’re often doing is collapsing the distinction between Sage and student. They’re holding a progressor to the standard of perfection and then using the inevitable gap to dismiss both the person and the system.

It’s also, in many cases, a defensive move. If they can frame you as inconsistent, they can ignore what you’re saying. If you’re not perfect, then your arguments don’t count. It’s an easy way to avoid engaging with the substance.

The Stoic response is simple: reject the premise. You are not trying to be flawless. You are trying to improve. And improvement requires error, correction, and continued effort over time.

So when you fall short—and you will—you haven’t failed at Stoicism. You’ve participated in it.

And when someone tries to use your imperfection against you, consider what they’re actually asking for: not progress, but perfection. Not practice, but performance.

That’s not Stoicism.

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