Podcast brief
Caleb Ontiveros on Why Stoic Happiness Must Be Up to Us
Caleb Ontiveros and Michael Tremblay lay out and stress-test the Stoic case that happiness must depend on us, not on the world.
A Stoa brief of an episode from Stoa Conversations
Caleb's Life Philosophy (Episode 226)
Listen to the original episode
The episode belongs to its makers. This page summarizes its arguments in Stoa's words and points to the moments where they are made. Brief updated .
The brief
Caleb Ontiveros argues that a philosophy of life is only useful if it guides action, and something physically impossible to achieve cannot be the right target for that guidance. Since happiness is the ultimate aim of a life, and must be reachable through our own agency, it has to be up to us rather than hostage to external outcomes.
The conversation builds this claim in stages. An analogy comes up comparing Stoic happiness to judging a Paralympic athlete: character, training, and effort matter more than an outright, objective standard like raw speed. Applied to happiness, the same shift in judgment matters, from comparing a life against external achievement to assessing how well a person trains and uses their own circumstances. Ontiveros then locates what is up to us in character itself, which he ties to judgments and values, and connects this to Chris Gill's reading of Stoicism, where the cosmos is ordered by a rational providence and human excellence in reason and sociability mirrors that same order on a smaller scale.
The strongest pressure on this picture comes from what Ontiveros calls the tragic objection: either some people simply cannot be happy given facts about themselves or the world, or virtue is so rare that almost no one actually reaches it. Michael Tremblay answers that this only threatens Stoicism if happiness is treated as all-or-nothing. If happiness comes in degrees, partial control over well-being is enough to preserve the Stoic claim, and Tremblay pushes this reply harder than Ontiveros does. Ontiveros also raises two further objections on his own initiative: an Aristotelian and Nietzschean case that embodiment, biological goods, or an irrational will beneath things might resist any rational cosmic order, and a challenge to the classical Stoic model of cognition as mere assent to propositions, which he thinks handles uncertainty and non-verbal, non-propositional experience poorly.
He closes by keeping the dichotomy of control and the link between human and cosmic order as the core worth preserving, while arguing for more agnosticism about the ultimate nature of things and more room for non-rational and non-propositional forms of understanding than classical Stoicism allows. Tremblay, describing his own leaning as more Socratic, is less drawn to that call for humility, though he grants that an open mind has value. The disagreement is left as a live question about how much certainty Stoic theory can honestly claim.
Strongest arguments
Happiness must be action relevant, hence up to us
3:33Ontiveros argues that a philosophy of life is meant to guide action, so happiness cannot be the right target for that philosophy if it is physically impossible to achieve. Since happiness is the ultimate aim of a life and must be reachable through our own agency, it has to be up to us rather than dependent on external outcomes.
The craft and Paralympics analogy for Stoic happiness
8:32The conversation compares the Stoic view of happiness to judging a Paralympic athlete by character and effort rather than by an objective external standard like outright speed. This is extended into the idea that the Stoic approach shifts attention from external achievement to how a person trains, perseveres, and makes the most of their own circumstances.
Character, grounded in how we think, is what is up to us
14:30Ontiveros argues that what is up to us is our character, which is constituted by our judgments and values. Citing Chris Gill, he connects the Stoic view that the universe is ordered by providence and reason to the claim that human excellence consists of rationality and sociability mirroring that cosmic order.
Objection one: life is tragic
26:06Ontiveros presents an evaluative version of the tragedy objection, that some people simply cannot be happy due to facts about themselves or the world, and an aspirational version, that no one actually achieves Stoic virtue or happiness given how rare and difficult it is. Tremblay responds that this objection only works if happiness is treated as all-or-nothing, whereas happiness plausibly comes in degrees, so partial control over well-being is enough to preserve the Stoic claim.
Objection two: reason does not capture our whole nature
31:39Ontiveros lays out Aristotelian and Nietzschean or Schopenhauerian alternatives, where either embodiment and biological goods matter independently of character, or an irrational will to life or power lies beneath everything rather than rational order. His reply is that Stoicism already treats intelligence and order as present throughout the natural and animal world, so these phenomena are not excluded from the Stoic picture, only ranked beneath rational excellence.
Objection three: non-cognitive and non-propositional knowledge
41:12Ontiveros argues that the classical Stoic model, where cognition is just assenting or dissenting to propositions attached to impressions, treats humans too much like computers and cannot be fully correct given uncertainty and non-binary experience. He suggests meaning and knowledge may be broader than what can be captured in verbal propositions, making room for mythical, revelatory, or otherwise non-rational forms of understanding that classical Stoic disputation-based therapy overlooks.
Summing up with a call for humility
49:21Ontiveros closes by saying the core Stoic insight worth keeping is the dichotomy of control applied to happiness, and the picture of human nature tied to cosmic order. But he argues for agnosticism about the ultimate nature of things and for taking non-cognitive therapies and non-rational beings more seriously than classical Stoicism does.
Disagreements
Whether the tragic objection to Stoic happiness succeeds
29:28Ontiveros finds some force in the aspirational tragic objection, that becoming virtuous or fully happy is exceptionally rare and difficult, and takes it as a genuine challenge worth wrestling with. Tremblay pushes back harder, arguing the objection only works if one denies that happiness comes in degrees, and that a strong claim of total tragedy is implausible.
How much weight to give agnosticism and non-rational knowledge
50:46Ontiveros argues that Stoicism should admit more humility and agnosticism about the ultimate nature of reason and give more credit to non-cognitive, non-propositional forms of knowledge. Tremblay, describing himself as more aligned with a Socratic emphasis on inquiry, says he is not naturally drawn to that call for epistemic humility, though he allows that keeping an open mind is worthwhile without going full skeptic.
Concepts discussed
- Dichotomy of control Some things are up to us, namely our own judgments and actions, and everything else is not, and only the first kind is truly free and our own.
- Living according to nature The ideal of conducting one's life in accordance with universal nature and one's own rational nature.
- Providence The view that everything from the gods, and even fortune, is woven into an orderly, provident universe that works for the good of the whole.
- Social duty The idea that rational beings are like limbs of one body, made for cooperation, and that one's acts should serve the common good.
- Virtue Excellence of character, understood by the Stoics as the sole good and the basis of happiness.
- Assent The faculty by which we accept or reject impressions, which we must train through an art or set of rules.
Questions this episode answers
-
Why do Stoics argue that happiness must be up to us?
3:33Because a philosophy of life is meant to guide action, happiness cannot be the right target if it is physically impossible to achieve, so it must depend on something within our own agency rather than external outcomes.
-
How does the Paralympics illustrate the Stoic view of happiness?
12:34Judging a Paralympic athlete by character, training, and effort rather than by objective speed mirrors the Stoic move of evaluating a person's happiness by their own excellence and choices rather than by comparison to an external, unattainable standard.
-
How does Chris Gill connect cosmic providence to human nature in Stoicism?
17:18Gill's view, as presented, is that structure, order, and providential care are expressions of a rational cosmic mind, and that human happiness at its best expresses rationality and sociability, mirroring that same cosmic order on a smaller scale.
-
What is the tragic objection to Stoic happiness and how might it be answered?
26:06The tragic objection holds either that some people simply cannot be happy or that true virtue is so rare it is nearly unattainable. One reply given is that this only threatens Stoicism if happiness is treated as all-or-nothing, since happiness plausibly admits of degrees and partial improvement remains up to us.
-
How might Aristotle and Nietzsche object to the Stoic view of human nature?
31:39An Aristotelian objection holds that embodiment and biological goods like health and beauty matter independently of character, while a Nietzschean or Schopenhauerian objection replaces rational cosmic order with an irrational will to life or power at the base of reality, denying any overarching telos.
-
Why might the Stoic view of cognition as propositional assent be incomplete?
41:12Treating every judgment as attaching a predicate to a proposition, like a classical computer, cannot fully account for experience given uncertainty and non-binary situations, suggesting that meaning and knowledge extend beyond what can be expressed verbally.
Related primary passages
Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions.The things in our control are by nature free, unrestrained, unhindered; but those not in our control are weak, slavish, restrained, belonging to others.
Epictetus, Handbook 1 Read in context
The opening line of the Handbook and the definition Epictetus gives the whole tradition.
But God has introduced man to be a spectator of God and of His works; and not only a spectator of them, but an interpreter. ... nature ends in contemplation and understanding, and in a way of life conformable to nature.
Epictetus, Discourses I 6 Read in context
Epictetus grounds living according to nature in what distinguishes human beings from other animals: the capacity to understand, not just use, our experience.
Just as it is with the members in those bodies which are united in one, so it is with rational beings which exist separate, for they have been constituted for one co-operation. And the perception of this will be more apparent to you if you often say to yourself that I am a member (melos) of the system of rational beings. But if (using the letter r) you say that you are a part (meros) you do not yet love men from your heart; beneficence does not yet delight you for its own sake; you still do it barely as a thing of propriety, and not yet as doing good to yourself
Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 7.13 Read in context
Marcus's central image: a limb (melos) belongs to the body in a way a mere part (meros) does not, and only the first lets kindness become genuine rather than dutiful.
Related pages
Sources
- Epictetus, Discourses I Primary text, Stoa library
- Epictetus, Handbook Primary text, Stoa library
- Marcus Aurelius, Meditations Primary text, Stoa library
- Stoa Conversations, Caleb's Life Philosophy (Episode 226) Podcast episode, original episode