Tanner Campbell

An additional bit of upset derived from this image, at least for me, was that, at first read, I wasn’t sure if the “genocidal nation” comment was a reference to Trump or Netanyahu.

For example, this first line originally read,

"Considering this vantage point, Ariston is not only disagreeing with Zeno..."

It's an immense help and makes me a better writer, I think.

I find myself using it less and less.

AI that aides self-sufficiency instead of eroding it, that's nice.

I use AI in my writing as a guardrail against my tendency to overtalk, present ideas with a little too much detail or a little too little structure, and grammar.

I write with a tool called "iA Writer."

Anything modified by AI, is indicated with a rainbow effect.

I LOVE this tool. #iAWriter

Stoics can be pro-life or pro-choice. In Stoicism the position isn't the arbiter of justice, the reasoning that lead to the position is. You can reason well to either. Here's an infographic based off my most recent episode of the podcast.

Oh that’s cool. Maybe that will be me one day. I don’t have any connections for that sort of thing. Here’s an AI image of me giving a TED talk though

Oxford, you say? He's in my neck of the woods then?

a man in a suit and yellow gloves says " can someone please fill me in " while holding a bag ALT: a man in a suit and yellow gloves says " can someone please fill me in " while holding a bag

Who is Alex O’Connor? Someone called him a “world class prick” and “fake philosopher” just now and was stunned I didn’t know who he was.

Okay, hi. Philosopher of Stoicism here, @wsj.com. Marcus Aurelius has not been acknowledged as a sage by anyone. There are only two people who have been suggested to be sages: Socrates and Cato. Why are you saying this wrong thing?

Appreciate his attempt to situate Stoicism sociologically. However, framing Stoicism as an elite tool for managing cognitive dissonance is reductive. The author explains how some powerful figures used Stoic language, but not what the philosophy actually argues. Interesting, but methodologically weak

This GPT generated image suggests a world without women and made me cackle upon seeing it. Like just a bunch of bros casually discussing Stoicism in Central Park. And there's a guy in a box. Just a guy in a box. Drinking a coffee.

I can't tell if I want to read this or not.

Read his 12th discourse on sexual indulgence, it’s 50% nightmare 50% reasonable. That’s why he’s so frustrating.

a man in a red shirt measures a window with a tape measure ALT: a man in a red shirt measures a window with a tape measure

Cold exposure training isn't Stoicism. It's self-indulgent bullshit. It's like measuring your own dick, patting yourself on the back for knowing how to use a tape measure, and then reaching out to Milwaukee Tools for a brand sponsorship citing yourself as a home improvement expert.

This week I am going kick Musonius Rufus in the nards. #Stoicism

One for #philsky. If what we're dealing with isn't true AI, that's actually fucking worse -- especially given that our content is the "source code" for these non-choices.

The everyday Greek use of eudaimōn isn’t the philosophical concept. The ethical term eudaimonia is largely a refinement of the folk usage. Plato & Aristotle aren’t hijacking a fixed theory they’re specifying what “living well” consists in. The Stoics tighten that further; development, not distortion

That there’s no shift in the core notion. Eudaimonia was always about living well through rational activity. The Stoics don’t remove outcomes from the aim; they deny that outcomes constitute whether a life went well. That’s clarification, not redefinition; avoids making flourishing hostage to luck 🍀

Oh I didn’t know that. With the exception of his most recent, I don’t read his work. Apologies if it seemed I wasn’t respecting your experience.

Aiming at worldly ends doesn’t make outcomes constitutive of flourishing. It shows only that action is world-directed. Your article needs outcomes to define a good life; your reply only shows they’re the objects of action. Those aren’t the same claim. Unless I’m missing something. Am I?

Phi Curious [with Massimo Pigliucci]

Mass does love his Cicero. And I like the guy, but he’s more of a Ciceronian Skeptic (by his own admission, if I’m not mistaken) than a Stoic. The last chat I had with him he didn’t say exactly this but he was advocating for a pluralistic approach to life philosophy. open.spotify.com/episode/46Ij...

Archery aims at targets, but excellence lies in the shot, not the wind. Hitting is the aim; shooting well is the success. Confusing the two makes success hostage to luck rather than agency.

a man with long hair is holding something in his hand and making a face ALT: a man with long hair is holding something in his hand and making a face

Gosh that’s clever. I wish I didn’t disagree with you I like that line so much. Evoking archery in a conversation about Stoicism you cad! 😂 hold on I’ll give a proper response. I need more space for this one.

Thank you ☺️

No definition change is needed. Eudaimonia was never “the world going well for you.” It meant living well through rational activity. Making outcomes constitutive isn’t clarification, it’s adding a new requirement.

The mistake here is treating “flourishing” as world-success. Stoicism says the good life is success in agency: choosing well, acting justly, aiming wisely, and then accepting results as moral indifferents. Pursue outcomes, but don’t use them to define whether you chose well. We can’t choose outcomes

I mean… come on Jerry.

The ICE Killings in Minnesota [Just vs Unjust Killing] In Stoicism when killing is just, it is called killing. When it is unjust, it is called murder.

Posted on LinkedIn: an article from a Stoic’s perspective. #Stoicism #Minnesota #ICE

When I say "this take" I suppose I mean the part where you said "I think context matters less at the outset..."

I agree with the last sentence though. Obviously.

a close up of a woman 's face with the words yes but no below it ALT: a close up of a woman 's face with the words yes but no below it

I strongly disagree with this take (no offence meant).

Marcus presents Stoicism (and the most quoted bits prove this) as a way to DEAL with life. Which is not what Stoicism is.

If translations came with a disclaimer saying as much, and other suggested reading, I'd feel better about it.

I agree.

garfield the cat is sitting in front of a window and pointing at something ALT: garfield the cat is sitting in front of a window and pointing at something

And I found it to be A FUCKING LAUGH RIOT that Holiday was the front-cover endorsement of his latest book on Socrates. As if Robertson needs the sign-off of Holiday as social proof. We have so many things so badly upside down. Holiday sells coins, Roberson is rebuilding the fucking academy.