Stoic striving and control

A short dialogue with ChatGPT

Jannik: It seems to me that there is a lot of confusion in relation to the Stoic concept of "Dichotomy of control" (apart from the fact that no Stoic ever called it that). That we should only care about what is "up to us" does clearly not mean that we should not try to achieve goals where the outcome is outside our control. It means that we should not let our happiness depend on the outcome. The goal of achieving wisdom is a good example. It's a de facto impossible goal to reach - far outside of the capacities of most human beings. If we should truly follow the idea of letting go of achieving anything outside our control, we should (paradoxically) give up the goal of actually achieving wisdom. Obviously, that would be a profoundly wrong. The truly Stoic approach is to strive for wisdom fully realizing that we will almost certainly never reach it. In the same way, a Stoic should not give up striving to further wisdom in other people just because we can't control what other people think or do. All the famous Stoics spent most of their lives trying to guide other people towards wisdom.

ChatGPT 4o: You're absolutely right in pointing out the common misunderstanding of what is often (anachronistically) called the "Dichotomy of Control" in Stoicism. The idea is not that we should only act on things fully within our control, but rather that we should engage in external goals without making our happiness dependent on their outcomes. The Stoic approach is about shifting our focus from results to the quality of our own actions and intentions.

Your example of wisdom is particularly apt. If Stoicism were purely about avoiding any effort toward things beyond our control, then the pursuit of wisdom itself—recognized as an ongoing process rather than an attainable endpoint—would be abandoned. That would be absurd from a Stoic perspective. Instead, the truly Stoic approach is to dedicate oneself to the pursuit of wisdom while fully acknowledging that perfect wisdom is beyond human reach.

Similarly, the idea that Stoics should not attempt to influence others just because they cannot control others' responses is deeply flawed. As you noted, every major Stoic figure—Epictetus, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius—spent considerable effort teaching and guiding others. They clearly saw value in persuasion and education, despite knowing that they could not dictate how others would receive their teachings. The key is that a Stoic should strive to help others without becoming frustrated or distressed if people resist wisdom.

This distinction between effort and attachment to results is what many modern interpretations miss. It’s not about not striving, but about striving well—with inner peace, resilience, and a focus on what we can control: our own reasoned choices and attitudes.

Jannik: Could this be why the Stoics saw moral progress as an indifferent? That whether we actually achieve moral progress is not important but striving for it is?

ChatGPT: Yes, that's exactly the right way to frame it. The Stoics classified moral progress (prokopê) as an indifferent (adiaphoron), but that doesn’t mean they thought it was unimportant—it means that it is not intrinsically good. What is intrinsically good is virtue itself, which resides in the quality of our reasoning and choices, not in external circumstances or outcomes.

If we take moral progress as a goal in itself, then we risk making our happiness dependent on whether or not we actually improve, which is beyond our full control. Instead, what matters to a Stoic is the effort to live virtuously in each moment, not whether we can measure or guarantee progress over time.

This aligns with the Sage/Fool dichotomy in Stoicism: one is either perfectly wise (the Sage) or not (the Fool), with no middle ground. But practically, most people are in a state of progress—striving toward wisdom but never fully achieving it. The key Stoic insight is that whether or not we make progress is beyond our control; what is in our control is the ongoing effort to align our judgments and actions with reason and virtue.

This also explains why Stoicism is a philosophy of practice rather than mere theory. The point isn’t to achieve some measurable moral progress, but to live each moment in accordance with virtue, regardless of whether we feel like we are advancing or not. The paradox is that this mindset—of focusing on the quality of each decision rather than on an end goal—is the best way to ensure real progress.

So, in short: moral progress is an indifferent because it is an external result, but striving for virtue in each moment is within our control, and that is what truly matters.

Jannik: Yes, exactly. As Seneca said:

"the greater part of progress is the desire to progress."

- Seneca, Letters 71.36

ChatGPT: Exactly! That quote from Seneca captures the essence of Stoic moral progress perfectly. The desire to progress—the commitment to strive for virtue—is itself the most important part of the journey. This is because progress is not about reaching a final state but about the ongoing practice of living virtuously, regardless of whether we ever attain full wisdom.

Seneca repeatedly emphasizes that the mere fact that we care about progress is already a significant step. This aligns well with what you pointed out earlier: if Stoics only pursued things fully within their control, they would paradoxically have to abandon the pursuit of wisdom itself. But instead, they recognize that striving for wisdom is fully within our control, even if attaining it is not.

It also explains why Stoicism is not a philosophy of perfectionism but of perpetual improvement. Unlike some ethical traditions that set up moral progress as a rigid set of milestones, Stoicism treats it as a way of living—a process rather than a result.

That’s why the Stoics never waited until they were "perfect" before engaging with the world. They wrote, taught, and advised others while fully recognizing their own imperfections. And in doing so, they lived the very philosophy they preached.

J.M.W. Turner: “Rome, from the Vatican”, 1820.