Many people who were introduced to Stoicism by popular books that were written in the twenty-first century are surprised by the religious nature of Stoic philosophy when they first encounter it in the surviving Stoic texts and scholarship on those texts. That is because none of these popular authors address the deeply religious nature of Stoicism positively. Instead, they either ignore it or attempt to discredit it as the unwarranted beliefs of ancient philosophers who lacked our modern scientific understanding of the universe. For some, like Lawrence Becker, Stoic ethics cannot be “credible” if it remains attached to Stoic cosmology (a providential cosmos).[1] Likewise, William Irvine considers this aspect of Stoicism “off-putting to modern individuals, almost none of whom believe in the existence of Zeus, and many of whom don’t believe we were created by a divine being who wanted what was best for us.”[2] Ryan Holiday takes a different approach and justifies ignoring Stoic physics (which includes Stoic theology) by making the unsubstantiated claim that as Stoicism progressed, the later Stoics “focused primarily on two of these topics—logic and ethics”[3] to the exclusion of physics. In a unique approach, Donald Robertson attempts to obscure the modern divergence from Stoicism by making the unsupportable claim that some of the ancient Stoics “may have adopted a more agnostic stance”[4] or may have “believed that agnosticism or even atheism may have been consistent with the Stoic way of life.”[5] Claims like these may satisfy those who are unfamiliar with the Stoic texts and have not read any credible scholarship on Stoicism. Likewise, they will please those atheists and agnostics who wish those claims to be true. However, these claims do not stand up to the textual evidence or credible Stoic scholarship.
A more brazen example of a predisposition against the religious nature of Stoicism is offered by Massimo Pigliucci, who combines literary fiction with a bit of scientific hubris to justify the abandonment of the Stoic worldview and its deeply religious nature. In his 2017 book How to Be a Stoic, which should have been more appropriately titled How to Be a Secular Stoic, Pigliucci engages Epictetus in an imaginary conversation. He sits Epictetus down for a friendly chat and educates him about the “powerful double punch” that David Hume and Charles Darwin delivered to the Stoic conception of a providential cosmos.[6] Of course, in Pigliucci’s version of this story, Epictetus does not provide a defense of Stoic providence against the claims of modern philosophy and science. Instead, Epictetus remains silent while the Stoic worldview is laid waste. However, for those who have any familiarity with the Discourses of Epictetus, it is hard to imagine this conversation would be so one-sided if the real Epictetus were engaged with Pigliucci. It is easy to imagine Epictetus countering with something like, my dear philosopher, “The [Stoics] say that the first thing that needs to be learned is the following, that there is a God, and a God who exercises providential care for the universe” (Discourses 2.14.11). Then, Epictetus, in his typically protreptic style, might have asked Pigliucci, “What is the universe, then, and who governs it?” (Discourses 2.14.25).
Finally, it’s fair to assume a modern version of Epictetus would be familiar enough with the writings of Hume and Darwin to know that Pigliucci’s “powerful double punch” may be quite effective against the New Atheist strawman version of God paraded into most modern debates. However, a modern, well-informed Epictetus would be able to point out that neither Hume nor Darwin can land a blow on the immanent God of Stoicism that providentially orders the cosmos from within. Unfortunately, Pigliucci is so beholden to the reductionist materialist belief system of nineteenth-century science that he is compelled to declare, as he recently did, that the metaphysical beliefs of the ancient Stoics are “unsustainable in the light of modern science.”[7] Of course, what Pigliucci and other reductionist materialists fail to tell their audience is that their nineteenth-century conception of reality is itself unsustainable in light of twentieth-century quantum discoveries and modern theories of consciousness. More importantly, Pigliucci’s appeal to modern science to refute Stoic metaphysics is adequately undercut by the existence of many brilliant modern scientists and philosophers, from a variety of fields, who believe that some form of preexisting consciousness or mind-like background provides the best explanation for our ordered cosmos and human consciousness.
Before I proceed any further, I want to make two points. First, the idea that Stoicism is somehow compatible with atheism without being substantially modified, and the speculation that the ancient Stoics “may have adopted a more agnostic stance”[8] or themselves “believed that agnosticism or even atheism may have been consistent with the Stoic way of life”[9] are recent inventions of the modern Stoic movement. These assertions are unsupportable by reasonable interpretations of the Stoic texts and are contradicted by a large body of scholarship. Lawrence Becker, in his 1998 book A New Stoicism, was the first person to propose a secular version of Stoic ethics. However, he acknowledged the dilemma he faced with his attempt to extract Stoic ethics from the “purposive system with an end or goal that practical reason directs us to follow.” He declared, “It seems that the book cannot be a work of stoic ethics without the cosmic teleology but that it cannot be a credible work of ethics with such a cosmology.”[10] In other words, Becker realizes that Stoic teleology—the idea that the cosmos has a purpose with which we humans should align ourselves—is not credible in academia. That will not be a surprise to anyone who is familiar with modern academic philosophy. The important point here is that Becker, who was at the leading edge of what would later develop into the modern Stoic movement, is open and honest about the fact that Stoic physics and ethics were considered inseparable. Prior to Becker, no one seriously considered such a separation feasible. Even today, twenty years after Becker wrote A New Stoicism, no credible scholar of Stoicism claims that Stoic ethics can be separated from the Stoic conception of a providential cosmos without making substantial changes to the system as a whole.
The second point is this: As I have repeatedly stated, I fully support the creation of a secularized version of Stoicism that can appeal to agnostics and atheists. I believe that furthering what Becker started in 1998 is both reasonable and commendable. However, reinterpreting Stoic texts and giving undue weight to ambiguous fragments in an attempt to anachronistically paint the ancients as agnostics or speculate that they may have been open to agnosticism or even atheism is neither reasonable nor commendable. These practices may serve to further expand the modern Stoic movement and sell more books and courses to the masses; nevertheless, they also open the door to a myriad of interpretive practices that allow Stoicism to be twisted and distorted beyond all recognition. In 1998, Lawrence Becker made his divergence from ancient Stoicism quite clear. Unfortunately, the opposite is true of some modern popularizers who attempt to justify their predisposition to secularism and their aversion to the religious nature of Stoicism by rewriting the history of the Stoa and attributing beliefs to the ancient Stoics that are contradicted by the surviving texts.
What the Scholars Say about the Religious Nature of Stoicism
Now that we have some idea of how the modern Stoic popularizers feel about the religious nature of Stoicism, let’s see what the recognized scholars have to say on this topic. Interestingly, early Christian thinkers, medieval scholastics, sixteenth- and seventeenth-century neo-Stoics, and the nineteenth- and twentieth-century scholars of Stoicism all recognized the deeply religious nature of Stoicism. As an example, the distinguished classicist Edith Hamilton claimed,
[Stoicism] was a religion first, a philosophy only second.[11]
Additionally, she wrote,
This is the voice not of philosophy, but of religion. Stoicism from its earliest beginnings was religious… It must not however be concluded that Stoicism was a religion only and not a philosophy.[12]
Likewise, the classical scholar Gilbert Murray wrote,
Stoicism may be called either a philosophy or a religion. It was a religion in its exalted passion; it was a philosophy inasmuch as it made no pretence to magical powers or supernatural knowledge.[13]
Scottish philosopher Edward Caird called Stoicism a religious philosophy,
From the first, Stoicism was a religious philosophy, as is shown by the great hymn of Cleanthes, the successor of Zeno as head of the school—a hymn which is inspired by the consciousness that it is one spiritual power which penetrates and controls the universe and is the source of every work done under the sun, “except what evil men endeavour in their folly.”[14]
Finally, German philosopher Eduard Zeller points out the impossibility of understanding Stoicism apart from its theology,
It would be impossible to give a full account of the philosophy of the Stoics without, at the same time, treating of their theology; for no early system is so closely connected with religion as that of the Stoics. Founded, as the whole view of the world is, upon the theory of one Divine Being… There is hardly a single prominent feature in the Stoic system which is not, more or less, connected with theology.[15]
Is Stoicism a Religion?
Are these scholars wrong to suggest that Stoicism is a religion? At first glance, it appears Pierre Hadot thought so. He suggests we must be careful to make a distinction between philosophy and religion.[16] Of course, such an assertion depends on the definitions one chooses for philosophy and religion. Moreover, the distinction is complicated by the fact that the line of demarcation between them has been quite blurred historically. Hadot suggests, “The essence of Stoicism is thus the experience of the absolute nature of moral conscience and of the purity of intention” and he does not think we should speak of it as “religion.” Instead, he argues, the word “philosophy” is adequate “to describe the purity of this attitude, and we ought to avoid mixing with philosophy all the vague and imprecise implications, both social and mythical, which the notion of religion brings with it.”[17] However, when we consider the definition of religion Hadot is relying on, it becomes quite clear why he does not apply that label to Stoicism. He writes,
The word religion should be used to designate a phenomenon that involves images, persons, offerings, celebrations, and places that are devoted to God or to gods.[18]
Certainly, there is no evidence Stoicism ever included any of those elements. While the Stoics did not object to any of those common religious practices, none of them are Stoic-specific practices. Ironically, the writings of Hadot are quite spiritual in nature, and he is largely responsible for popularizing the label “spiritual exercises” to refer to the philosophical practices of Stoicism and the other Hellenistic schools. Nevertheless, he is opposed to labeling it a religion. It is also reasonable to assume his distinction was influenced by his training in the Catholic priesthood. In contrast with the institution and catechisms of Catholicism, Stoicism is certainly not a religion.
Ultimately, the question depends on a definition of religion for which there is no consensus. I think the question is a red herring. No one is declaring Stoicism was or is a religion as most people understand that term. Therefore, the proclamation that Stoicism in not a religion, which is frequently made by modern Stoics, is little more than a distraction that avoids the important question: Is Stoicism a religious philosophy that entails assent to a providential cosmos to make its spiritual practices fully meaningful? Over the protestations of the modern Stoic popularizers, the recognized scholars of Stoicism say, “Yes.”
While Stoicism was never a religion in the modern sense, with temples and altars, its spiritual nature evoked reverence and piety in the ancients and in many who practice it today. In its traditional form, Stoicism was a personal religion in which “the fundamental doctrines of the Stoa were such as to create a kind of spirituality and to raise men’s souls toward the cosmic God.”[19] Christophe Jedan, professor of philosophy of religion and ethics at the University of Groningen, wrote a well-researched book on Stoic virtue ethics in 2009. In the introduction, Jedan writes:
There must have been a core of common beliefs and a common outlook that defined what it was to be a Stoic, even if stances on practical ethical questions were radically contended. That core, I suggest, was formed pivotally by the religious orientation of Stoic ethics. I am convinced that religion is the single most important perspective from which we can understand the specific shape and coherence of Stoic virtue ethics.[20]
Jedan is not a well-known scholar of Stoicism; therefore, some might be tempted to dismiss this work as an outlier. However, David Sedley from the University of Cambridge is one of the most highly regarded scholars in the field of Stoicism and here is his endorsement of Jedan’s work from the back cover of his book:
Christoph Jedan here demonstrates both the originality of the Stoic conception of virtue and its theoretical importance within the broader ambit of the school’s philosophy. Prominent among the merits of this meticulously argued monograph is its insistence on giving the well-attested religious aspects of Stoic ethics their due weight.
Unfortunately, words like “religion,” “religious,” and “God” are burdened with a tremendous amount of baggage which causes many people to recoil almost instinctively from them. Therefore, it is important to clarify what we mean by the religious nature of Stoicism and how it differs from what commonly comes to mind with such words. The word spiritual applies equally well; however, it also carries baggage from many “new age” forms of spirituality. Roger Walsh, author, and professor of psychiatry at the University of California at Irvine, offers the following definitions of religion and spirituality that fits with Stoicism,
We need to distinguish between two crucial terms: religion and spirituality. The word religion has many meanings; in particular it implies a concern with the sacred and supreme values of life. The term spirituality, on the other hand, refers to direct experience of the sacred. Spiritual practices are those that help us experience the sacred—that which is most central and essential to our lives—for ourselves.[21]
Stoicism offers a direct experience of the sacred through the recognition that God, as pneuma, is immanent in all of Nature and the logos (universal Reason) is shared by humankind. Again, Stoicism can be reasonably considered a personal religious or spiritual practice.
Religious Sentiment of the Stoics: There from the Beginning
The Stoic God is an all-pervasive, immanent, active force in the cosmos and is equivalent to, and often called, “Nature.” Zeus, pneuma,and logos are also used to refer to this active force. The Stoics used many names to refer to the divine principle in the cosmos. Cleanthes, the second head of the ancient Stoa, pointed this out in the opening lines of his Hymn to Zeus:
Most glorious of the immortals, invoked by many names, ever all-powerful,
Zeus, the First Cause of Nature, who rules all things with Law,
As Brad Inwood, professor of classics and philosophy at Yale University and editor of The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics points out,
The themes of Cleanthes’ hymns lie at the heart of Stoicism and help to flesh out the doctrine of Chrysippus that theology is the culmination of physics… Like every branch of philosophy, physics is intimately concerned with the place of human beings in the coordinated whole which is run by Zeus.[22]
Theistic leanings are quite prominent in the Hymn to Zeus by Cleanthes, who is often considered the “most religious”[23] of the early Stoics. Thus, Brad Inwood suggests,
According to Cleanthes’ Hymn, the philosophical life is a religious life, and vice versa.[24]
Likewise, the Discourses of Epictetus are rich in theistic language. The logos of Stoicism is not a fully personal God; nevertheless, as professor Giovanni Reale, from the Catholic University of Milan, pointed out:
[I]n the history of the Stoa, God will tend to assume more and more spiritual and personal traits, religiousness will tend to permeate more and more strongly the system, and prayer will begin to acquire a precise meaning… The Stoa will turn, especially in the last stage, towards theism, but without arriving at it fully.[25]
Even though the religious nature of Stoicism evolved over the course of its five-hundred-year history, the “vivid religious sense” was there from the founding of the Stoa and already found “full expression in the well-known Hymn to Zeus.”[26] A.A. Long suggests that Epictetus’ conception of God as a mix of pantheism and theism will be “most intelligible” if it is pictured as a “universal mind.”[27] Nature as a whole is divine in Stoicism. Nature, for the Stoics, means a divine cosmos, and it is equivalent to God because pneuma—the active principle—permeates the entire cosmos and everything in it, including us humans. This divine cosmos is providentially ordered to the extent that everything works out for the good of the whole rather than the good of any particular person.
The religious nature of Stoicism is more than “God talk,” and the Stoic God is more than a mere metaphor. When we read the writings of Seneca, the Discourses of Epictetus, and the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, and find within them a source of inspiration and moral guidance, we are wise to remember each of these men trusted in a divine and providential cosmos as part of their Stoic practice. The same psychological consolation is available today for the practitioner who integrates the metaphysical assumptions of the Stoics into their philosophical way of life.
Stoicism Is a Spiritual Way of Life
So, what does it mean to declare that Stoicism is a religious philosophy and entails a spiritual way of life? Moreover, how does Stoicism differ from religion, as we commonly conceive of it? One important distinction is this: The religious impulse of Stoicism is directed toward personal piety rather than public worship. Prayer and worship were certainly included in Stoic practice, and they had a single aim: To bring the thoughts and actions of the individual practitioner into coherence with universal Reason (logos), which pervades the cosmos. As Pierre Hadot argues,
What defined a Stoic above all else was the choice of a life in which every thought, every desire, and every action would be guided by no other law than that of universal Reason.[28]
The aim of Stoic practice is to establish agreement between our human reason, which is a fragment of the logos, and Universal Reason (Logos), which permeates and orders the cosmos. That agreement is personal, internal, and it cannot be mediated by any priest or intermediary. A Stoic teacher, like Epictetus, can only point the way. It is the practitioner who must make the individual choices that keep them on the Stoic path. Nevertheless, even though “a number of radical differences” separate traditional monotheistic religions from Stoicism, as A.A. Long argues,
Epictetus’ theological language betokens a personal belief and experience as deep and wholehearted as that of any Jew or Christian or Muslim.[29]
More importantly, as the German ethics professor Christoph Jedan argues,
The religious tenor of Stoic philosophy provides the key for an adequate understanding of Stoic ethics, not only across time but also structurally, by helping us to understand a number of counterintuitive and seemingly incoherent Stoic statements.[30]
No, Stoicism is not a religion in the traditional sense; however, it is a deeply spiritual way of life designed to transform the practitioner. It does so by changing our conception of good and bad and teaching us to live a life of moral excellence in agreement with cosmic Nature. In other words, a Stoic is one “who wants to be of one mind with God” (Discourses 2.19.26). Cosmic Nature is ubiquitous within the Stoic texts, and it is an integral aspect of Stoic theory and practice. The “God within” was important to Seneca; the God talk of Epictetus was an expression of his piety toward and his relationship with the divinity of Nature; and Marcus was serious when he asked himself, in the privacy of his own journal, why he should even “care to go on living in a world devoid of gods or devoid of providence?” Fortunately, Marcus maintained his confidence in the Stoic worldview and overcame the nihilism and existential angst of the alternative with his confident proclamation about the gods:
But they do exist, and they do show concern for human affairs, and they have placed it wholly within the power of human beings never to fall into genuine evils. (Meditations 2.11)
Similarly, Seneca succinctly expresses the religious impulse of Stoicism while simultaneously contrasting it with traditional religion,
We do not need to uplift our hands towards heaven, or to beg the keeper of a temple to let us approach his idol’s ear, as if in this way our prayers were more likely to be heard. God is near you, he is with you, he is within you. (Letters 41.1)
Like Marcus, Seneca did not consider life worth living without the existence of God and his ability to contemplate the divine (Preface to Book 1 of Natural Questions). Of course, Epictetus’ personal piety is on display in his suggestion that we should sing perpetual praises to God,
If I were a nightingale, I would perform the work of a nightingale, and if I were a swan, that of a swan. But as it is, I am a rational being, and I must sing the praise of God. This is my work, and I accomplish it, and I will never abandon my post for as long as it is granted to me to remain in it; and I invite all of you to join me in this same song. (Discourses 1.16.20-21)
Likewise, Epictetus claims to be following the traditional teaching of the Stoa when he argues the first thing a philosopher must learn is that God exists and providentially administers the cosmos (Discourses 2.14.11). The same kind of reverence is clearly visible in Marcus Aurelius’ profound reliance on a providential cosmos for “ethical and emotional support.”[31] Marcus wrote,
Everything suits me that suits your designs, O my universe. Nothing is too early or too late for me that is in your own good time. All is fruit for me that your seasons bring, O nature. All proceeds from you, all subsists in you, and to you all things return. (Meditations 4.23)
The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius have inspired countless people, and that is a good reason why it remains an influential and inspirational part of the Western spiritual and ethical canon into the twenty-first century. American philosopher and religious scholar Jacob Needleman suggests the combination of “metaphysical vision, poetic genius, and the worldly realism of a ruler” within the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius inspire us and give us “honorable and realistic hope in our embattled lives.”[32] As a result, he argues,
[The Meditations] deserves its unique place among the writings of the world’s great spiritual philosophers.[33]
Likewise, the Reverend F.W. Farrar concluded,
I know not whether the whole of heathen antiquity, out of its gallery of stately and royal figures, can furnish a nobler, or purer, or more lovable picture than that of this crowned philosopher and laurelled hero, who was yet one of the humblest and one of the most enlightened of all ancient “Seekers after God.”[34]
Conclusion
I am certain that Lawrence Becker is right; the divine and providential cosmos of Stoicism is not “credible” in modern academia. Likewise, William Irvine is certainly correct to suggest that the Stoic worldview is “off-putting” to atheists and agnostics who desire to self-identify as Stoics in our secular age. Finally, I have no doubt that for Massimo Pigliucci and other moderns who are beholden to the reductionist materialist belief system of mainstream science, the Stoic worldview will appear “unsustainable.” Fortunately, Stoicism has already survived more than two thousand years of criticism and bias from all sides. Therefore, we have every reason to believe it will survive the bias of our current secular age, and the attempts to morph it into a system that is compatible with the modern predisposition to agnosticism and atheism. In spite of these criticisms, there is something perennially appealing within Stoicism. Many who disavow the Stoic conception of a divine and providential cosmos still find the lives of the ancients who lived according to that worldview to be inspirational. They may feel the subtle tug of cosmic Nature attempting to draw them toward a connection with something larger than themselves. Within the pages of the Stoic texts, some agnostics and atheists even sense that some part of their soul is resonating with something profound and much larger than their secular worldview allows. They are correct.
The deeply spiritual nature of Stoicism is plainly evident to any open-minded reader of the surviving Stoic texts. No, Stoicism is not an institutionalized religion—no one is arguing it is. However, Stoicism is more than ethics, it is more than a path to tranquility, it is more than a life hack, and it is more than a stoical version of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. Stoicism is a deeply spiritual way of life. It was so during the early Stoa, as evidenced by Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus, and it remained so throughout the history of the Stoa, as can be seen in the Letters and Essays of Seneca, the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, and the Discourses of Epictetus. That spiritual aspect of Stoicism continues to appeal to many moderns because it resonates with our human nature, which intuitively knows we are participants in something greater than ourselves. We are parts of a larger whole.
Within the pages of the Stoic texts, we feel the subtle pull of cosmic Nature—that which we are physically part of, but from which we may have become psychically disconnected. Cosmic Nature does not demand obedience to a list of rules; it encourages agreement with the events of Nature for our well-being. By living in agreement with cosmic Nature, the excellence of our human nature is realized, and we can experience psychological well-being regardless of external circumstances. Stoicism is not a religion as commonly understood; nevertheless, it remains a viable spiritual path for moderns. The spiritual teachings and practices of Stoicism will not lead you to a temple, church, confessional booth, priest, altar call, tent revival, or set of holy scriptures. Instead, the Stoic path will lead you to a sacred place inside your psyche where that fragment of the divine within you can reconnect with the divinity that is immanent within Nature, and thereby help you create a rational and meaningful life.
ENDNOTES:
[1] Lawrence C. Becker, A New Stoicism (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1998), 6.
[2] William B. Irvine, A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy (Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 55.
[3] Ryan Holiday and Stephen Hanselman, The Daily Stoic: 366 Meditations on Wisdom, Perseverance, and the Art of Living (New York, NY: Penguin, 2016), 4.
[4] Donald Robertson, “Providence or Atoms? Atoms! A Defense of Being a Modern Stoic,” in Stoicism Today: Selected Writings II (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2016), 242.
[5] Donald Robertson, “Stoicism: God or Atoms? | Stoicism and the Art of Happiness,” 2012, https://philosophy-of-cbt.com/2012/10/07/stoicism-god-or-atoms/.
[6] Massimo Pigliucci, How to Be a Stoic: Using Ancient Philosophy to Live a Modern Life (New York: Basic Books, 2017).
[7] Massimo Pigliucci, “The Growing Pains of the Stoic Movement,” How to Be a Stoic (blog), June 5, 2018, https://howtobeastoic.wordpress.com/2018/06/05/the-growing-pains-of-the-stoic-movement/.
[8] Robertson, “Providence or Atoms? Atoms! A Defense of Being a Modern Stoic,” 242.
[9] Robertson, “Stoicism: God or Atoms? | Stoicism and the Art of Happiness.”
[10] Becker, 6
[11] Edith Hamilton, The Echo of Greece (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1957), 157.
[12] Edith Hamilton, The Roman Way (New York: W.W. Norton, 1932), 260.
[13] Gilbert Murray, The Stoic Philosophy (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1915), 14–15.
[14] Edward Caird, The Evolution of Theology in the Greek Philosophers, vol. 2 (Glasgow: James MacLehose and Sons, 1904), 76–77.
[15] Eduard Zeller, The Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics, trans. Oswald Reichel (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1870), 322.
[16] Pierre Hadot, The Present Alone Is Our Happiness: Conversations with Jeannie Carlier and Arnold I. Davidson, trans. Marc Djaballah and Michael Chase (Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 2011), 37.
[17] Pierre Hadot, The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), 309.
[18] Hadot, The Present Alone Is Our Happiness, 37.
[19] Andre Jean Festugiere, Personal Religion Among The Greeks (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1954), 106.
[20] Christoph Jedan, Stoic Virtues: Chrysippus and the Religious Character of Stoic Ethics (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2009), 2.
[21] Roger Walsh, Essential Spirituality: The 7 Central Practices to Awaken Heart and Mind (New York: Wiley, 1999), 3.
[22] Brad Inwood, Reading Seneca: Stoic Philosophy at Rome(New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 158.; also see Diogenes Laertius 7.40
[23] Inwood, 158.
[24] Inwood, 27.
[25] Giovanni Reale, The Systems of the Hellenistic Age, trans. John R. Catan (State University of New York Press, 1985), 247.
[26] Reale, 247.
[27] A. A. Long, Epictetus: A Stoic and Socratic Guide to Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 148.
[28] Hadot, The inner Citadel, 308.
[29] Long, Epictetus, 145–47.
[30] Jedan, Stoic Virtues, 2.
[31] Christopher Gill, Marcus Aurelius Meditations, Books 1-6 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), lxix.
[32] Jacob Needleman and John Piazza, The Essential Marcus Aurelius (Tarcher/Penguin, 2008), x.
[33] Needleman and Piazza, x–xi.
[34] Rev F. W. Farrar, Seekers After God (New York: Cosimo Classics, 1890), 316–17.
