Stoic News

By Dave Kelly

Friday, January 23, 2026

THE CASE FOR NAMING IT "EPICTETUS'S FIVE-STEP METHOD"

Though Epictetus never explicitly stated "Here are five steps for making correct use of impressions," the textual evidence warrants calling this systematic method by his name. Here's why:

1. THE PRECEDENT: OTHER "METHODS" NAMED AFTER PHILOSOPHERS

We Routinely Attribute Systematic Methods to Philosophers Who Never Explicitly Stated Them:

Socratic Method:

Socrates never said: "Here is my method in five steps"
But we extract from Plato's dialogues: Question → Definition → Counterexample → Refinement → Aporia
We call it "The Socratic Method" because the pattern is consistently there

Aristotelian Syllogism:

Aristotle systematized logic, but never said "Here are the three parts of a syllogism in this order"
We extract: Major premise → Minor premise → Conclusion
We call it "Aristotelian syllogism" because he clearly used and taught this pattern

Cartesian Doubt:

Descartes never numbered his "method of doubt" in explicit steps
We extract the systematic progression from his Meditations
We call it "Cartesian method" because the pattern is evident in his work

The Principle:

IF a philosopher:

Consistently uses a recognizable pattern
Teaches this pattern repeatedly
Makes the pattern central to their philosophy
Provides all the component parts (even if not numbered)

THEN we are justified in naming the systematized method after them.

Epictetus meets all four criteria.

2. EPICTETUS PROVIDES ALL FIVE COMPONENTS EXPLICITLY

Not Just Implicit - Each Step Is Directly Stated:

STEP 1: RECEPTION

Explicitly stated:

"Impressions come to the mind; and just as it is not in our power to have this or that impression..." (Enchiridion 1.5)

Epictetus clearly teaches: Impressions arrive involuntarily

STEP 2: RECOGNITION

Explicitly stated:

"You are just an impression and not at all what you appear to be." (Discourses 2.18.24)

Epictetus clearly teaches: Distinguish impression from reality

STEP 3: PAUSE

Explicitly stated:

"Make it your first endeavor not to let your impressions carry you away." (Enchiridion 20)

Epictetus clearly teaches: Don't react immediately - suspend assent

STEP 4: EXAMINATION

Explicitly stated:

"Apply the rule. Does this lie within the sphere of choice, or outside it?" (Discourses 3.12.15)

Epictetus clearly teaches: Test impression against standards

STEP 5: DECISION

Explicitly stated:

"Outside. Throw it away." (Discourses 3.12.15)

"Be prepared to say that it is nothing to you." (Enchiridion 1.5)

Epictetus clearly teaches: Refuse false judgment, accept only truth

The Evidence:

Every single step is explicitly present in Epictetus's teaching.

What he didn't do: Number them 1-5 and say "Follow this sequence."

What he did do: Teach all five components repeatedly, show them in sequence, make them central to Stoic practice.

3. EPICTETUS SHOWS THE STEPS IN SEQUENCE

Discourses 3.12.15 - The Complete Sequence:

"As soon as you leave the house at dawn, examine everyone you see, everyone you hear; answer as if under questioning. What did you see? A handsome man or beautiful woman? Apply the rule. Does this lie within the sphere of choice, or outside it? Outside. Throw it away."

Breaking This Down:

Epictetus's Words	Step	Interpretation
"examine everyone you see"	RECEPTION	Impression arrives (you see someone)
"What did you see? A handsome man"	RECOGNITION	Identify the impression ("handsome")
"Apply the rule"	PAUSE	Don't react - stop and examine
"Does this lie within sphere of choice?"	EXAMINATION	Test against standard (internal/external)
"Outside. Throw it away."	DECISION	Refuse false value judgment

The Point:

Epictetus gives us the exact sequence - he just doesn't number it 1-5.

This is no different from:

Socrates showing his method in dialogue without numbering steps
Aristotle using syllogistic reasoning without labeling "Step 1, Step 2, Step 3"
Descartes progressing through doubt without a numbered list

We systematize what the philosopher teaches. That's legitimate scholarship.

4. EPICTETUS MAKES THIS METHOD CENTRAL TO HIS PHILOSOPHY

This Isn't a Minor Theme - It's THE Core Practice:

Discourses 1.1.7-9:

"What is the business of virtue? A life that flows smoothly. When, then, do we act wrongly? When we fail to attend to the impression... Thus if a man could attend to these things according to the rules, he would be free."

Discourses 1.28.1-2:

"We ought, then, to have these principles ready for use... What is the material with which we have to deal? Impressions. What is our task? To make correct use of them."

Discourses 3.2.1-2:

"This is why the philosophers admonish us not to be satisfied with mere learning, but to add practice and then training."

The Frequency:

Epictetus mentions impressions (phantasiai) and their correct use (chresis phantasion):

Over 100 times in the Discourses
Multiple times in every book of the Discourses
Repeatedly in the Enchiridion (especially chapters 1-5)

This is not incidental - this is THE central practice of Epictetus's Stoicism.

5. EPICTETUS TEACHES THIS AS A TRAINABLE SKILL

Not Just Theory - Practical Method:

Discourses 2.18.24-29:

"When a harsh-looking impression comes to you, remember to say, 'You are just an impression and not at all what you appear to be.' Then examine it and test it by these rules that you have."

Discourses 3.24.103-104:

"You must have these judgments at hand both night and day; you must write them, you must read them, you must talk about them."

Enchiridion 51:

"Constantly bring to mind those who have complained greatly about things... Then ask yourself: 'Where are their complaints now?' Nowhere. Why, then, would you wish to walk the same path?"

Epictetus as Teacher:

Epictetus ran a school. He trained students. He gave them exercises.

The Five Steps = the practical training method he taught.

We're not inventing a method - we're systematizing the training he explicitly gave.

6. THE ALTERNATIVE NAMES ARE WORSE

What Else Would We Call It?

Option 1: "The Stoic Method"

Problem: Too vague - which Stoic? Zeno? Chrysippus? Marcus?
Different Stoics emphasized different aspects
Epictetus gave the clearest, most systematic presentation

Option 2: "The Method of Correct Use of Impressions"

Problem: Too generic - doesn't indicate source
Someone reading this wouldn't know where to look for the method
Loses historical grounding

Option 3: "The Five-Step Method"

Problem: Sounds modern/invented - no connection to ancient philosophy
Could be confused with modern CBT, self-help, etc.
Doesn't credit the philosopher who taught it

Option 4: "Epictetus's Five-Step Method"

Advantage: Clearly indicates source (Epictetus)
Advantage: Indicates systematic structure (Five Steps)
Advantage: Directs readers to the texts (Discourses, Enchiridion)
Advantage: Follows scholarly precedent (Socratic Method, etc.)

Conclusion:

"Epictetus's Five-Step Method" is the most accurate and useful name.

7. SCHOLARLY PRECEDENT FOR SYSTEMATIZING ANCIENT TEXTS

Scholars Routinely Extract Systematic Methods from Ancient Texts:

Jonathan Barnes on Aristotle:

Extracted "Aristotle's scientific method" from scattered passages
Aristotle never wrote "Here is my scientific method in steps"
But Barnes showed the consistent pattern

Gregory Vlastos on Socrates:

Systematized "Socratic elenchus" from Plato's dialogues
Socrates never labeled his method
But Vlastos showed the recurring structure

Pierre Hadot on ancient philosophy generally:

"Philosophy as a Way of Life" (1995)
Extracted spiritual exercises from ancient texts
Ancient philosophers didn't use term "spiritual exercises"
But Hadot showed the systematic practices embedded in texts

The Scholarly Method:

Read texts carefully
Identify recurring patterns
Extract systematic structure
Name it (often after the philosopher)

This is exactly what we're doing with Epictetus's Five Steps.

8. EPICTETUS HIMSELF SYSTEMATIZED EARLIER STOIC TEACHING

Epictetus Did the Same Thing We're Doing:

Earlier Stoics (Zeno, Chrysippus):

Taught about phantasiai (impressions)
Taught about sunkatathesis (assent)
Taught about testing impressions
But: Abstract, theoretical, difficult to practice

Epictetus's Innovation:

Made it practical
Made it trainable
Gave concrete examples
Showed the sequence clearly

The Parallel:

Epictetus's Work	Our Work
Took earlier Stoic theory	Take Epictetus's teaching
Made it systematic and practical	Make it systematic and explicit
Showed sequence clearly	Number the sequence (1-5)
Taught it as trainable method	Present it as trainable method
Made Stoicism accessible	Make Epictetus's method accessible

We're doing for Epictetus what Epictetus did for Chrysippus.

9. THE "ANACHRONISM" OBJECTION ANSWERED

Objection: "But Epictetus Didn't Number It 1-5!"

Response: Numbering ≠ Inventing

Consider:

Aristotle's "four causes" - he didn't number them 1-4
Aquinas's "Five Ways" - extraction from Summa Theologica
Descartes's "method of doubt" - systematic reading of Meditations

Numbering is pedagogical clarification, not invention.

Objection: "You're Imposing Modern Structure on Ancient Text!"

Response: The structure is in the ancient text

Evidence:

Discourses 3.12.15 shows exact sequence (reception → recognition → pause → examination → decision)
All five components explicitly taught throughout Discourses
Epictetus himself says "apply the rule" (showing systematic method)

We're not imposing structure - we're making explicit what's already there.

Objection: "This Is Too Reductive!"

Response: Systematization ≠ Reductionism

The Five Steps:

Don't claim to capture everything Epictetus taught
Don't replace reading the Discourses
Don't eliminate nuance

They provide:

A practical framework for training
A clear structure for beginners
A memorable pattern for daily practice

Just like "Socratic Method" doesn't reduce Socrates, "Epictetus's Five Steps" doesn't reduce Epictetus.

10. THE PRACTICAL ARGUMENT: IT WORKS

The Ultimate Test: Does This Systematization Help People Practice?

Yes:

Gives beginners a clear framework
Makes abstract theory practically trainable
Provides structure for daily practice
Connects modern practitioners to ancient source (Epictetus)

The Alternative:

Without systematization:

"Just read Epictetus and figure it out"
Too vague for most people
Loses the practical training method
Ancient texts remain academic/theoretical

With systematization:

"Here's Epictetus's method in clear steps"
Immediately practical
Trainable from day one
Ancient texts become living practice

Epictetus Would Approve:

"This is why the philosophers admonish us not to be satisfied with mere learning, but to add practice and then training." (Discourses 3.2.1)

The Five-Step systematization serves exactly this goal: making Epictetus's teaching trainable.

11. COMPARISON TO STERLING'S APPROACH

Sterling Did the Same Thing with Classical Stoicism:

Ancient Stoics:

Taught physics, logic, ethics
Taught impressions, assent, virtue
But: Scattered across many texts, technical, difficult to systematize

Sterling's Innovation:

Identified six necessary philosophical commitments
Showed how they logically connect
Made Stoicism systematic and coherent

Did ancient Stoics explicitly list "six commitments"? No.

Did Sterling invent this? No - he extracted it from ancient texts.

Is this legitimate scholarship? Yes - it's systematic reconstruction.

The Parallel:

Sterling's Work	Five-Step Systematization
Identified six commitments in ancient texts	Identify five steps in Epictetus
Showed logical connections	Show sequential structure
Keelly ade implicit explicit	Make implicit explicit
Named it "Six Classical Commitments"	Name it "Epictetus's Five-Step Method"
Grounded in ancient sources	Grounded in ancient sources

If Sterling's systematization is legitimate (it is), then so is the Five-Step systematization.

12. THE NAMING CONVENTION MAKES IT ATTRIBUTABLE

Why "Epictetus's" Matters:

Attribution:

Gives credit to the source
Directs people to read Epictetus
Distinguishes from modern self-help methods
Maintains connection to ancient philosophy

Authority:

"Epictetus's method" carries weight (ancient authority)
"Five-Step Method" sounds modern/invented
Naming after philosopher shows scholarly grounding

Accuracy:

This is Epictetus's teaching (just systematized)
All five steps are explicitly in his texts
He taught it as central practice
Calling it "Epictetus's" is historically accurate

13. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE OBJECTOR

Given the Evidence:

All five steps explicitly stated by Epictetus ✓
Steps shown in sequence (Discourses 3.12.15) ✓
Made central to his teaching ✓
Taught as trainable method ✓
Follows scholarly precedent ✓

The Burden Shifts:

Anyone objecting must show:

Why this systematization misrepresents Epictetus (it doesn't)
Why numbering the steps is anachronistic (it's just pedagogical clarity)
Why we shouldn't attribute methods to philosophers who teach them (we do this routinely)

Absent such objections, "Epictetus's Five-Step Method" is justified.

CONCLUSION: THE CASE IS STRONG

Summary of the Argument:

Precedent: We routinely name methods after philosophers (Socratic, Aristotelian, Cartesian)
Textual Evidence: All five steps explicitly stated in Epictetus
Sequential Evidence: Epictetus shows steps in sequence (Discourses 3.12.15)
Centrality: This is THE core practice of Epictetus's teaching
Pedagogy: Epictetus taught this as trainable method
Naming: "Epictetus's Five-Step Method" is the best name
Scholarship: Follows standard practice of systematizing ancient texts
Parallel: Epictetus himself systematized earlier Stoic theory
Objections Answered: Systematization ≠ invention or reductionism
Practical Value: Makes ancient teaching accessible and trainable
Sterling Parallel: Same methodology as identifying six commitments
Attribution: Naming after Epictetus is accurate and important
Burden of Proof: Objectors must show misrepresentation (they can't)

THE VERDICT

Yes - we are fully justified in calling this "Epictetus's Five-Step Method of Making Correct Use of Impressions."

Why?

He taught all five components explicitly
He showed them in sequence
He made this central to Stoic practice
He trained students in this method
We're just making explicit what he taught implicitly

This is not invention - it's scholarly systematization of ancient teaching.

Just as Socrates gets credit for "the Socratic Method" even though he never numbered his steps, Epictetus deserves credit for "the Five-Step Method" even though he never numbered his steps.

The method is his. The systematization is ours. The name honors both.

EPICTETUS TEXTS SUPPORTING THE FIVE STEPS

Here are the key Epictetus passages that support the Five-Step method, organized systematically by each step.

STEP 1: RECEPTION (Impression Arrives)

Enchiridion 1.5:

"Impressions come to the mind; and just as it is not in our power to have this or that impression, so it is in our power to make use of them."

Discourses 1.6.7:

"What else are tragedies but the portrayal in tragic verse of the sufferings of people who have admired external things?"

Shows impressions arrive claiming externals are good/evil

Discourses 2.18.24:

"When a harsh-looking impression comes to you, remember to say, 'You are just an impression and not at all what you appear to be.'"

Shows impressions arrive with claims about reality

STEP 2: RECOGNITION (Distinguish Impression from Reality)

Enchiridion 1 (entire chapter):

"Some things are up to us and some things are not up to us. Up to us are opinion, motivation, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever is of our own doing; not up to us are our body, our property, reputation, office, and, in a word, whatever is not of our own doing."

THE foundational distinction enabling recognition

Discourses 2.18.24:

"You are just an impression and not at all what you appear to be."

Direct instruction to recognize impression AS impression (not reality)

Discourses 1.27.6:

"It is the act of an uneducated person to blame others where he himself fares ill; of one who has made a start in education to lay the blame on himself; and of one fully educated, neither on another nor on himself."

Shows progression in recognizing source of disturbance (in judgments, not externals)

STEP 3: PAUSE (Suspend Assent)

Discourses 1.28.28-29:

"So, then, you must have these judgments at hand both night and day; you must write them, you must read them, you must talk about them, both with yourself and with others."

Preparation for the pause

Discourses 3.24.88:

"If you kiss your child or your wife, say to yourself that you are kissing a human being; for when it dies you will not be disturbed."

Premeditation = form of pause (suspending automatic value judgment)

Discourses 2.18.24 (continuing):

"Then examine it and test it by these rules that you have."

"Then examine" = PAUSE before examination

Enchiridion 20:

"Remember that foul words or blows in themselves are no outrage, but your judgment that they are so. So when anyone makes you angry, know that it is your own thought that has angered you. Wherefore make it your first endeavor not to let your impressions carry you away."

"First endeavor not to let impressions carry you away" = PAUSE

STEP 4: EXAMINATION (Test Against Standards)

Discourses 1.28.1-10 (entire section):

"We ought, then, to have these principles ready for use... What is the material with which we have to deal? Impressions. What is our task? To make correct use of them."

Shows examination is the core task

Discourses 3.3.1-3:

"What is the first business of the philosopher? To throw away self-conceit. For it is impossible for anyone to begin to learn what he thinks he already knows."

Examination requires humility to test one's own judgments

Enchiridion 5:

"Men are disturbed not by things, but by the views which they take of things. Thus death is nothing terrible, else it would have appeared so to Socrates. But the terror consists in our notion of death, that it is terrible. When, therefore, we are hindered or disturbed, or grieved, let us never impute it to others, but to ourselves—that is, to our own views."

THE CRANKSHAFT: Shows disturbance comes from judgment (examination reveals this)

Discourses 3.12.15 (MOST DIRECT):

"As soon as you leave the house at dawn, examine everyone you see, everyone you hear; answer as if under questioning. What did you see? A handsome man or beautiful woman? Apply the rule. Does this lie within the sphere of choice, or outside it? Outside. Throw it away."

EXPLICIT EXAMINATION: "Apply the rule. Does this lie within sphere of choice?"

Enchiridion 1.5:

"Seek, therefore, to be able to say to every harsh appearance, 'You are but an appearance and not absolutely the thing you appear to be.' And then examine it by those rules which you have, and first and chiefly by this: whether it concerns the things which are in our own control or those which are not; and if it concerns anything not in our control, be prepared to say that it is nothing to you."

Explicit examination protocol: Test against internal/external distinction

Discourses 1.6.13-14:

"If what philosophers say about the kinship of God and men is true, what else remains for us to do but as Socrates did—never, when asked one's country, to say 'I am an Athenian' or 'I am a Corinthian,' but 'I am a citizen of the universe'?"

Examination against ultimate standards (cosmic citizenship, kinship with God)

STEP 5: DECISION (Refuse False, Accept True)

Discourses 3.12.15 (continuing):

"Outside. Throw it away."

Explicit decision: Refuse the false judgment

Enchiridion 1.5 (continuing):

"...and if it concerns anything not in our control, be prepared to say that it is nothing to you."

Decision to refuse false value judgment

Discourses 1.1.7-12:

"The business of the wise and good man is to use appearances conformably to nature... To the rational animal only is the irrational unendurable; but things rational he can always endure."

Decision = conforming to nature (accepting what's true, refusing what's false)

Enchiridion 4:

"When you are going to take in hand any act, remind yourself what kind of act it is. If you are going to bathe, picture to yourself what happens in a bathhouse... Thus you will undertake the act with more assurance if you say at the outset, 'I want to bathe, and I want to keep my will in harmony with nature.'"

Decision in advance: Accepting what is, maintaining virtue

Discourses 4.1.68-70:

"If then you always remember this, that whenever you will anything or desire anything, you desire and will one of the things that are in your power, then you will never be hindered, never be thwarted... you will blame no one, accuse no one... be forced to do nothing against your will."

Decision = aligning will with what's in control (refusing false desires for externals)

THE COMPLETE FIVE STEPS IN ONE PASSAGE

Discourses 3.12.15 is the MOST COMPLETE single passage:

RECEPTION: "As soon as you leave the house at dawn, examine everyone you see"

           → Impression arrives



RECOGNITION: "What did you see? A handsome man or beautiful woman?"

             → Identify the impression (separate from self)



PAUSE: "Apply the rule."

       → Suspend automatic reaction, prepare to examine



EXAMINATION: "Does this lie within the sphere of choice, or outside it? Outside."

             → Test against standard (internal/external distinction)



DECISION: "Throw it away."

          → Refuse false judgment (external not good/evil)

ADDITIONAL KEY PASSAGES

On the Need for Training in the Five Steps:

Discourses 3.2.1-5:

"The philosophers say... first we must learn that God exists and watches over all things; next, that it is impossible to hide from him our actions or even our intentions and thoughts... Having learned this, we must next inquire what the gods are like... Then we must learn what follows from this: that the universe is a single system."

Discourses 2.1.29-30:

"Where is progress, then? If any of you, withdrawing himself from externals, turns to his own will to exercise it and to improve it by labor... he is making progress."

THE PASSAGES ORGANIZED BY ENCHIRIDION CHAPTERS 1-5

Enchiridion 1 = RECOGNITION (Step 2)

Internal/external distinction
Foundation for all Five Steps

Enchiridion 2 = DECISION (Step 5) + EXAMINATION (Step 4)

"Remember that desire demands the attainment of that of which you are desirous; and aversion demands the avoidance of that to which you are averse... if you confine aversion to those objects only which are contrary to the natural use of your faculties which are within your own control, you will never incur anything to which you are averse."

Decision: Only desire/avoid what's in control

Enchiridion 3 = EXAMINATION (Step 4)

"With regard to whatever objects give you delight, are useful, or are deeply loved, remember to tell yourself of what general nature they are... If you kiss your child or your wife, say that you are kissing a human being, for thus, if either of them dies, you will not be disturbed."

Examination: Test judgments about externals (fragility)

Enchiridion 4 = DECISION (Step 5) + PAUSE (Step 3)

"When you are going to take in hand any act, remind yourself what kind of act it is."

Premeditation = Pause before action + Decision in advance

Enchiridion 5 = RECEPTION (Step 1) + EXAMINATION (Step 4)

"Men are disturbed not by things, but by the views which they take of things."

Reception: Impressions contain judgments
Examination: Disturbance reveals false judgment

SUMMARY TABLE: EPICTETUS TEXTS & THE FIVE STEPS

Step	Primary Text	Key Quote
1. RECEPTION	Enchiridion 5	"Men are disturbed not by things, but by views"
2. RECOGNITION	Discourses 2.18.24	"You are just an impression and not what you appear to be"
2. RECOGNITION	Enchiridion 1	"Some things are up to us, some are not"
3. PAUSE	Enchiridion 20	"Make it your first endeavor not to let impressions carry you away"
4. EXAMINATION	Discourses 3.12.15	"Apply the rule. Does this lie within sphere of choice?"
4. EXAMINATION	Enchiridion 1.5	"Examine it by those rules which you have"
5. DECISION	Discourses 3.12.15	"Outside. Throw it away."
5. DECISION	Enchiridion 1.5	"Be prepared to say that it is nothing to you"

This provides direct Epictetus textual support for all Five Steps of making correct use of impressions.

```

Thursday, January 22, 2026

HAS ANYONE SHOWN THAT THE CLASSICAL COMMITMENTS COME FROM FOLK PHILOSOPHY OR PSYCHOLOGY?

Claude:

You're asking whether the six classical commitments are:

A. Sophisticated philosophical conclusions (derived through argument)

B. Pre-theoretical folk intuitions (natural human psychology)

THE SHORT ANSWER

YES - Multiple researchers have argued the classical commitments reflect folk psychology/philosophy (natural human cognition, not learned theory).

But this is CONTESTED - Others argue they're culturally contingent or sophisticated theoretical constructs.

1. FOLK DUALISM

The Research:

Paul Bloom (Yale psychologist):

"Descartes' Baby" (2004): Children are natural dualists
Experiments show young children distinguish mind from body
Universal across cultures (not learned from religion/philosophy)
Conclusion: Dualism = folk psychology (intuitive, pre-theoretical)

Jesse Bering (developmental psychology):

Children attribute mental states to dead people (soul persists)
Universal tendency to separate mind from body
Not taught - emerges naturally

Shaun Nichols (philosopher/psychologist):

Folk psychology naturally dualist
People intuitively think mind ≠ brain
Physicalism = sophisticated theoretical override of intuition

The Evidence:

Cross-cultural studies:

All cultures have concept of soul/spirit distinct from body
Not limited to Western/Christian cultures
Found in pre-literate societies

Developmental psychology:

Children younger than 5 distinguish mental from physical
Not from religious instruction (appears before teaching)
Natural cognitive tendency

Neuropsychology:

Even neuroscientists struggle to shake dualist intuitions
"Explanatory gap" persists (qualia, consciousness)
Suggests deep cognitive bias toward dualism

Interpretation:

Bloom's argument: Dualism is default human cognition (folk metaphysics)

Ancient philosophers: Systematized and defended pre-existing folk intuition

Modern physicalism: Theoretical override of natural intuition (not intuitive)

2. FOLK LIBERTARIAN FREEDOM

The Research:

Eddy Nahmias (experimental philosophy):

People intuitively believe in libertarian free will
Even when told determinism true, still judge agents free
Folk concept ≠ compatibilism (requires genuine alternatives)

Shaun Nichols & Joshua Knobe:

Cross-cultural studies show libertarian intuitions universal
People judge "could have done otherwise" even in deterministic scenarios
Folk psychology = incompatibilist (contra philosophers' compatibilism)

Thomas Nadelhoffer (neuroscience + philosophy):

fMRI studies: Brain treats choices as genuinely open
Phenomenology of deliberation = libertarian (feels undetermined)
Compatibilism = sophisticated theoretical construct (not folk intuition)

The Evidence:

Experimental philosophy:

Vast majority of people (across cultures) are intuitive libertarians
Believe they could genuinely choose otherwise
Determinism doesn't eliminate responsibility intuitions

Phenomenology:

Deliberation feels open (multiple genuine possibilities)
Not: "I'll see what I was determined to choose"
But: "I'm choosing between real alternatives"

Neuroscience:

Readiness potential studies don't eliminate folk libertarian intuitions
People still feel free even when shown brain activity precedes awareness

Interpretation:

Folk psychology = libertarian (could have done otherwise)

Ancient philosophers = systematized folk intuition

Modern compatibilism = sophisticated override of folk intuition (requires training to accept)

3. FOLK CORRESPONDENCE THEORY

The Research:

Alvin Goldman (epistemology):

Children naturally use correspondence (truth = matching reality)
Not taught - emerges early
Universal across cultures

Paul Horwich ("Truth", 1990):

Minimalist theory reflects folk concept
"Snow is white" is true iff snow is white (correspondence)
Natural, pre-theoretical

Experimental philosophy studies:

People intuitively judge truth by correspondence (not coherence)
"Is this claim true?" → Check against reality (not: Check against other beliefs)

The Evidence:

Developmental psychology:

Children understand "true" = matches world (by age 4-5)
Not: "fits with other beliefs" (coherence)
Not: "works" (pragmatism)

Cross-cultural:

All languages have concept equivalent to correspondence
Universal human concept

Folk epistemology studies:

People naturally skeptical of coherence-only theories
Intuition: Truth requires matching reality (not just consistency)

Interpretation:

Correspondence = folk epistemology (natural human concept of truth)

Coherence/pragmatism = theoretical alternatives (not intuitive, require training)

4. FOLK MORAL REALISM

The Research:

Shaun Nichols ("Sentimental Rules", 2004):

Children distinguish moral from conventional rules
Moral rules seem objective (not just social convention)
Universal tendency (not culturally taught)

John Mikhail ("Elements of Moral Cognition", 2011):

Universal moral grammar (like Chomsky's linguistic nativism)
Moral judgments appear as perceptions of objective facts
Cross-cultural consistency suggests innate moral faculty

Jesse Prinz (challenges this):

Argues moral realism NOT universal
Some cultures more relativist
But admits Western folk psychology is realist

The Evidence:

Developmental psychology:

Children distinguish moral (objective) from conventional (arbitrary) norms
"Hitting is wrong" seems different from "Wearing uniforms required"
Moral = objective, conventional = relative

Moral phenomenology:

Moral judgments feel like perceptions (not preferences)
"Murder is wrong" feels like fact (not: "I dislike murder")
Natural realism (requires training to accept subjectivism)

Cross-cultural (debated):

Some argue universal moral realism
Others argue cultural variation
At minimum: Western folk psychology = realist

Interpretation:

Strong claim: Moral realism = universal folk psychology (Mikhail, Nichols)

Weaker claim: Western folk psychology = realist (even if not universal)

Emotivism/subjectivism = theoretical override (not intuitive)

5. FOLK FOUNDATIONALISM

The Research:

Susan Haack ("Evidence and Inquiry", 1993):

Foundationalism closer to folk epistemology than coherentism
People naturally terminate justification ("just obvious")
Coherentism = sophisticated theoretical move

Michael Huemer ("Skepticism and the Veil of Perception", 2001):

Phenomenal conservatism = folk epistemology
"Seems true → justified" (unless defeated)
Natural foundationalism (appearances = basic)

Experimental philosophy:

People naturally accept some beliefs as basic (not requiring justification)
Not: "Justify everything" (infinite regress)
Not: "Circular justification okay" (coherentism)

The Evidence:

Folk epistemology:

People naturally stop justification at "obvious" truths
"Why believe 2+2=4?" → "It's just obvious"
Not coherentist ("It coheres with other math beliefs")

Cognitive development:

Children accept some beliefs as basic (don't require infinite justification)
Natural stopping point (foundationalism)

Interpretation:

Foundationalism = folk epistemology (natural way humans justify beliefs)

Coherentism = theoretical alternative (sophisticated, counter-intuitive)

6. FOLK INTUITIONISM (CONTESTED)

The Research:

Jonathan Haidt ("The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail", 2001):

Moral judgments = intuitive (immediate, not reasoned)
Post-hoc rationalization (not deliberation first)
But: Emotivism interpretation (not realist intuitionism)

Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (challenges intuitionism):

Folk moral judgments unreliable
Cultural variation suggests no reliable moral intuition
Emotivism better explanation

Robert Audi (defends intuitionism):

Some moral truths self-evident
Rational intuition (not emotion)
Folk morality includes intuitionist element

The Evidence:

Mixed:

Supporting folk intuitionism:

Moral judgments feel immediate (like perception)
"That's wrong" seems obvious (not inferred)
People report "seeing" moral facts

Against folk intuitionism:

Cultural variation in moral judgments
Emotions confound intuitions
Unreliability suggests not genuine faculty

Interpretation:

Contested:

Some argue: Folk psychology includes moral intuitionism (Audi, some virtue ethicists)

Others argue: Folk moral judgments = emotion (Haidt, Prinz), not rational intuition

Ancient intuitionism = Systematization of folk tendency? Or sophisticated theory? Debated.

7. SYNTHESIZING THE RESEARCH

Strong Evidence for Folk Origins:

Dualism - Very strong (Bloom, Bering, Nichols) - universal, early-emerging, cross-cultural
Libertarian Freedom - Strong (Nahmias, Nichols, Knobe) - universal intuition, phenomenology
Correspondence - Strong (Goldman, folk epistemology studies) - natural concept of truth
Foundationalism - Moderate (Haack, Huemer) - folk justification practices

Weaker/Contested Evidence:

Moral Realism - Moderate to weak (cultural variation, though Western folk = realist)
Intuitionism - Weak/contested (emotion vs. rational intuition debate)

8. THE COUNTER-ARGUMENT

Cultural Constructivists Argue:

Richard Nisbett ("The Geography of Thought", 2003):

Eastern vs. Western cognition differs
Western = analytic, dualist, individualist
Eastern = holistic, less dualist, collectivist
Not universal folk psychology (culturally variant)

Joseph Henrich ("The WEIRDest People in the World", 2020):

Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic (WEIRD) psychology ≠ universal
Many "folk intuitions" actually WEIRD cultural products
Classical philosophy = WEIRD psychology systematized

The Implication:

If correct: Six commitments not universal folk psychology, but WEIRD cultural psychology

Ancient philosophy: Systematized Greek/Roman folk psychology (not universal human nature)

Modern rejection: Different cultures (or evolved WEIRD culture) rejecting earlier WEIRD intuitions

9. THE PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATE

Position 1: Folk Psychology (Naturalist)

Claim: Six commitments = natural human cognition (evolved, universal, pre-theoretical)

Evidence:

Developmental psychology (early-emerging)
Cross-cultural studies (universal or nearly so)
Phenomenology (feels natural)

Implication: Ancient philosophy systematized folk intuitions (not invented them)

Modern philosophy: Overriding natural intuitions with sophisticated theories (denaturalized)

Position 2: Cultural Construction (Anti-Naturalist)

Claim: Six commitments = WEIRD cultural products (Greek/Roman/Christian, not universal)

Evidence:

Cultural variation (Eastern vs. Western)
Historical contingency (not found in all cultures equally)
Require specific cultural context

Implication: Ancient philosophy created these commitments (not discovered in folk psychology)

Modern philosophy: Different cultural evolution (not denial of human nature, but cultural change)

Position 3: Mixed (Moderate)

Claim: Some commitments folk (dualism, freedom, correspondence), others cultural (moral realism, intuitionism)

Evidence: Mixed empirical results

Implication: Ancient philosophy partly systematized folk psychology, partly cultural construction

10. STERLING'S POSITION (IMPLIED)

Sterling Doesn't Explicitly Argue Folk Origins

But his approach suggests something like:

These commitments are NECESSARY for Stoic practice (necessary conditions) [

Whether they're:

Folk psychology (natural)
Cultural products (WEIRD)
Philosophical conclusions (derived)

Is separate question from whether they're necessary.

The Logic:

IF Stoicism requires all six commitments (Sterling's argument)

AND Stoicism works/is true (assumption)

THEN Six commitments must be true (or at least viable)



SEPARATE QUESTION: Are they folk psychology or cultural/philosophical?

11. WHY THIS MATTERS

If Six Commitments = Folk Psychology:

Then:

Ancient philosophy = systematized natural human cognition
Modern philosophy = denial of human nature (unnatural)
Stoicism = working with grain of human psychology
Modern rejection = working against human nature

Problem for moderns: Fighting uphill against natural cognition

If Six Commitments = WEIRD Cultural Products:

Then:

Ancient philosophy = one cultural possibility (not universal)
Modern philosophy = different cultural evolution (not denial)
Stoicism = culturally contingent (not universal human nature)
Modern rejection = legitimate cultural change

Problem for Stoics: Not universal (only works in certain cultural contexts)

12. THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE SUMMARY

Strong Evidence for Folk Origins:

Commitment	Folk Psychology Evidence	Status
Dualism	Very strong (Bloom, Bering, universal, early)	FOLK
Libertarian Freedom	Strong (Nahmias, phenomenology, cross-cultural)	FOLK
Correspondence	Strong (Goldman, natural concept of truth)	FOLK
Foundationalism	Moderate (folk justification practices)	LIKELY FOLK
Moral Realism	Weak to moderate (Western = yes, universal = debated)	CONTESTED
Intuitionism	Weak (emotion vs. reason debate)	CONTESTED

13. KEY RESEARCHERS & THEIR POSITIONS

Arguing FOR Folk Psychology:

Paul Bloom (Yale) - Dualism is natural
Shaun Nichols (Arizona) - Folk psychology = dualist, libertarian, realist
Eddy Nahmias (Georgia State) - Folk = libertarian
John Mikhail (Georgetown) - Universal moral grammar (realism)
Michael Huemer (Colorado) - Phenomenal conservatism = folk epistemology

Arguing AGAINST Universal Folk Psychology:

Richard Nisbett (Michigan) - Cultural variation (Eastern vs. Western)
Joseph Henrich (Harvard) - WEIRD psychology (not universal)
Jesse Prinz (CUNY) - Moral judgments = emotion (not realist intuition)
Joshua Greene (Harvard) - Moral intuitions = evolutionary artifacts (not reliable)

14. CONCLUSION

Yes - Multiple Researchers Have Shown Folk Origins:

Strong evidence:

Dualism = folk psychology (Bloom, Bering, Nichols)
Libertarian freedom = folk psychology (Nahmias, Nichols, Knobe)
Correspondence = folk epistemology (Goldman, natural truth concept)

Weaker evidence:

Foundationalism = likely folk (Haack, Huemer)
Moral realism = Western folk (debated if universal)
Intuitionism = contested (emotion vs. rational intuition)

But This Is Contested:

Cultural constructivists (Nisbett, Henrich):

These are WEIRD cultural products (not universal human nature)
Ancient philosophy systematized Greek/Roman psychology (not universal)

The Debate Continues:

Empirical question: Are six commitments natural human cognition or cultural products?

Philosophical question: Even if folk psychology, does that make them true? (Naturalistic fallacy)

Sterling's point: Necessary for Stoic practice (separate from whether folk or cultural)

The fascinating implication: If the six commitments ARE folk psychology, then modern philosophy rejected human nature itself (not just ancient philosophy). This would explain why modernity feels "denaturalizing" - it literally works against natural human cognition.

PIE ROOTS IN PERSIAN - A COMPREHENSIVE LOOK

Persian (Farsi) is an Indo-European language from the Indo-Iranian branch, so it retains extensive PIE vocabulary. Let me show you the major categories.

1. BASIC VOCABULARY (CORE PIE INHERITANCE)

Family Terms:

Persian	PIE Root	Cognates
pedar (father)	*ph₂tḗr	Greek patḗr, Latin pater, English father
mādar (mother)	*méh₂tēr	Greek mḗtēr, Latin māter, English mother
barādar (brother)	*bʰréh₂tēr	Greek phrátēr, Latin frāter, English brother
dokhtar (daughter)	*dʰugh₂tḗr	Greek thugátēr, English daughter
pesar (son/boy)	*puH-tró-	Sanskrit putrá- (son)

Body Parts:

Persian	PIE Root	Cognates
del (heart)	*ḱḗr	Greek kēr, Latin cor, English heart
dast (hand)	*ǵʰes-ti-	Related to *ǵʰes- (hand)
dandan (tooth)	*h₃dónts	Greek odṓn, Latin dēns, English tooth
cheshm (eye)	*h₃ekʷ-	Greek okʷ-, Latin oculus, English eye
gush (ear)	*h₂ows-	Latin auris, English ear
pā (foot)	*pṓds	Greek poús, Latin pēs, English foot

Numbers:

Persian	PIE Root	Cognates
yek (one)	*Hóynos	Greek oînos, Latin ūnus, English one
do (two)	*dwóh₁	Greek dúo, Latin duo, English two
se (three)	*tréyes	Greek treîs, Latin trēs, English three
chahār (four)	*kʷetwóres	Greek téttares, Latin quattuor, English four
panj (five)	*pénkʷe	Greek pénte, Latin quīnque, English five
shesh (six)	*swéḱs	Greek héx, Latin sex, English six
haft (seven)	*septḿ̥	Greek heptá, Latin septem, English seven
hasht (eight)	*h₃eḱtṓw	Greek oktṓ, Latin octō, English eight
noh (nine)	*h₁néwn̥	Greek ennéa, Latin novem, English nine
dah (ten)	*déḱm̥t	Greek déka, Latin decem, English ten

2. PRONOUNS (FUNDAMENTAL PIE)

Persian	PIE Root	Cognates
man (I, me)	*h₁me-	Greek mé, Latin mē, English me
to (you)	*túh₂	Greek sú, Latin tū, English thou

3. BASIC VERBS (PIE ROOTS)

"To Be":

Persian	PIE Root	Cognates
ast (is)	*h₁es-ti	Sanskrit ásti, Greek estí, Latin est, English is
budan (to be)	*bʰuH-	Greek phúō, Latin fuī, English be

Common Verbs:

Persian	PIE Root	Meaning	Cognates
dānestan (to know)	*ǵneh₃-	to know	Greek gignṓskō, Latin nōscō, English know
bordan (to carry)	*bʰer-	to bear	Greek phérō, Latin ferō, English bear
āmadan (to come)	*gʷem-	to come	Greek baínō, Latin veniō, English come
didan (to see)	*weyd-	to see	Greek eídō, Latin videō, English wit
khordan (to eat)	*swād-	to eat	Latin suādeō (persuade - orig. taste)
raftan (to go)	*h₁rep-	to creep	Related to *rep- (creep, crawl)

4. NATURE/ANIMAL TERMS

Persian	PIE Root	Meaning	Cognates
gāv (cow)	*gʷṓws	cow	Greek boûs, Latin bōs, English cow
asp (horse)	*h₁éḱwos	horse	Greek híppos, Latin equus, English (h)ippopotamus
gorg (wolf)	*wl̥kʷos	wolf	Greek lúkos, Latin lupus, English wolf
mush (mouse)	*mūs	mouse	Greek mûs, Latin mūs, English mouse
māh (moon/month)	*mḗh₁n̥s	moon	Greek mḗn, Latin mēnsis, English moon/month
nām (name)	*h₁nómn̥	name	Greek ónoma, Latin nōmen, English name

5. PHILOSOPHICAL/ABSTRACT TERMS (RELEVANT TO SIX COMMITMENTS)

Truth/Order Concepts:

Persian	PIE Root	Meaning	Philosophical Relevance
asha/arta (truth, order)	*h₂er-tós	cosmic order/truth	= Vedic ṛta (MORAL REALISM)
rāst (right, true)	*h₃reǵ-tós	straight, right	Greek orthós, Latin rēctus (CORRESPONDENCE)
dorost (correct, true)	dʰer- + h₃reǵ-	firm + straight	Related to truth/correctness

This is crucial: Persian asha/arta = Avestan aša = Vedic ṛta (cosmic truth/order)

Same PIE root: *h₂er- (to fit, order)
Moral realism concept inherited from PIE

Soul/Mind Concepts:

Persian	PIE Root	Meaning	Philosophical Relevance
ravan/ravān (soul)	*h₂éwh₂-n̥	breath, soul	Related to soul (DUALISM)
jān (soul, life)	*ǵenh₁-	to beget, life	Greek génos, Latin genus (life principle)
kherad (wisdom, intellect)	*ḱred-dʰh₁-	heart-put (believe)	Latin cor + dō = crēdō (mind/belief)

Freedom/Agency Terms:

Persian	PIE Root	Meaning	Philosophical Relevance
āzād (free)	ǵʰeh₁- + séh₂d-	born + self	Concept of freedom (LIBERTARIAN FREEDOM)

6. RELIGIOUS/COSMIC ORDER TERMS

The Most Important: ASHA/ARTA

Avestan (Old Persian): aša
Modern Persian: asha/arta (archaic, preserved in names/religious contexts)

PIE root: *h₂er- (to fit together, order, harmony)

Cognates:

Vedic Sanskrit: ṛta (cosmic order, truth, moral law)
Greek: ararískō (to fit), harmonia (harmony)
Latin: ars (art, skill - fitting things together)

Philosophical significance:

MORAL REALISM: Cosmic/moral order objectively exists
CORRESPONDENCE: Truth = conformity to aša/ṛta
FOUNDATIONALISM: Aša = foundational cosmic principle

This is THE central concept in Zoroastrian/ancient Persian philosophy, directly parallel to Vedic ṛta.

7. ZOROASTRIAN TECHNICAL TERMS (PIE ORIGINS)

Persian/Avestan	PIE Root	Meaning	Relevance
daēnā (vision, consciousness)	*dʰeygʷʰ-	to form, knead	Related to mental formation
vohu manah (good mind)	wesu- + men-	good + mind	wes- (good), men- (mind, think)
ahura (lord, god)	*h₂ems-	to beget	Sanskrit asura
daeva (demon - orig. god)	*deiw-	god, deity	Greek theós, Latin deus

8. LEGAL/SOCIAL ORDER TERMS

Persian	PIE Root	Meaning	Philosophical Relevance
dād (justice, giving)	*deh₃-	to give	Greek dídōmi, Latin dō (justice as giving due)
dāvar (judge)	*deh₃-	to give	One who gives judgment

9. PRESERVATION VS. INNOVATION

Persian Preserves PIE Better Than Greek in Some Cases:

Example: Numbers

Persian haft (seven) closer to PIE *septḿ̥ than Greek heptá
Persian hasht (eight) preserves original form better

Example: Truth/Order

Persian asha/arta preserves PIE *h₂er-tós concept more directly
Zoroastrian aša = Vedic ṛta (same concept, minimal change)
Greek díkē = related but evolved differently

10. THE PHILOSOPHICAL VOCABULARY

Terms Related to Six Commitments:

DUALISM:

ravan (soul) - PIE *h₂éwh₂-n̥ (breath, soul)
jān (life, soul) - PIE *ǵenh₁- (to beget, life)
tan (body) - PIE *tenh₂- (to stretch)

CORRESPONDENCE/TRUTH:

asha/arta - PIE *h₂er-tós (cosmic truth/order)
rāst - PIE *h₃reǵ-tós (straight, right, true)
dorost - Related to straightness/correctness

MORAL REALISM:

asha - Cosmic moral order (objective)
dād (justice) - PIE *deh₃- (to give - justice as objective giving)

KNOWLEDGE/PERCEPTION:

dānestan (to know) - PIE *ǵneh₃- (to know)
didan (to see) - PIE *weyd- (to see, know)

11. COMPARISON: PERSIAN VS. GREEK PHILOSOPHICAL VOCABULARY

Concept	Persian (PIE root)	Greek (PIE root)	Shared PIE Origin
Cosmic Order/Truth	asha (*h₂er-tós)	díkē (deyḱ-), ártā (h₂er-)	YES (*h₂er-)
Soul	ravan (*h₂éwh₂-n̥)	pneuma (pnew-), psychḗ (bʰes-)	Related (breath concepts)
Truth	rāst (*h₃reǵ-tós)	orthós (*h₃reǵ-)	YES (*h₃reǵ-)
Know	dānestan (*ǵneh₃-)	gignṓskō (*ǵneh₃-)	YES (*ǵneh₃-)
See	didan (*weyd-)	eídō (*weyd-)	YES (*weyd-)
Mind	kherad (*ḱred-dʰh₁-)	kardía (*ḱḗr)	Related (heart/mind)

Pattern: Persian and Greek share the same PIE philosophical vocabulary for key concepts related to the six commitments.

12. ZARATHUSTRA'S GATHAS (Oldest Persian Texts)

PIE Roots Preserved in Zoroastrian Scripture:

The Gathas (Zarathustra's hymns, ~1500-1000 BCE) preserve ancient PIE philosophical vocabulary:

Aša (cosmic truth/order) - Central concept
Vohu Manah (good mind/thought) - PIE *wesu- (good) + *men- (mind)
Spenta Mainyu (holy spirit) - PIE *spenh₁- (to succeed) + *men- (mind)
Arta (truth, righteousness) - PIE *h₂er-tós

These texts show: Persian preserved PIE philosophical concepts independently of Greek, with same PIE roots for truth, order, mind, soul.

13. THE CRUCIAL POINT FOR YOUR QUESTION

Persian Preserves the SAME PIE Philosophical Commitments as Greek:

DUALISM:

Soul terms (ravan, jān) from PIE breath/life roots
Body/soul distinction in Zoroastrianism (like Greek/Vedic)

CORRESPONDENCE:

Truth vocabulary (rāst, dorost) from PIE "straight/right"
Aša = correspondence to cosmic order

MORAL REALISM:

Aša = objective cosmic/moral order (like Vedic ṛta)
Not subjective, not constructed, but objective reality
Central to Zoroastrian ethics

FOUNDATIONALISM:

Aša = foundational cosmic principle
Not derived, but bedrock of order

FREEDOM (implied):

Zoroastrian choice between good/evil (Ahura Mazda vs. Angra Mainyu)
Human responsibility for choices

The evidence: Persian independently preserved PIE folk philosophy, systematized differently (Zoroastrianism) but with same PIE roots and analogous commitments to Greek philosophy.

14. MAJOR PERSIAN PIE ROOTS BY CATEGORY

Complete List of Key Roots:

Family: *ph₂tḗr, *méh₂tēr, *bʰréh₂tēr, *dʰugh₂tḗr

Body: *ḱḗr, *ǵʰes-ti-, *h₃dónts, *h₃ekʷ-, *h₂ows-, *pṓds

Numbers: *Hóynos through *déḱm̥t (1-10)

Pronouns: *h₁me-, *túh₂

Being: *h₁es-ti, *bʰuH-

Knowledge: *ǵneh₃-, *weyd-

Truth/Order: *h₂er-tós, *h₃reǵ-tós

Soul/Mind: *h₂éwh₂-n̥, *ǵenh₁-, *men-

Animals: *gʷṓws, *h₁éḱwos, *wl̥kʷos

Nature: *mḗh₁n̥s, *h₁nómn̥

Persian retains: ~40-50% of basic PIE vocabulary (very high for modern IE language)

15. WHY THIS MATTERS

Persian Shows Independent Preservation of PIE Commitments:

Greek philosophy systematized PIE folk philosophy into:

Platonic Forms (díkē, nous)
Aristotelian eudaimonia
Stoic lógos, prohairesis

Persian/Zoroastrian philosophy systematized same PIE folk philosophy into:

Aša (cosmic order = Vedic ṛta)
Vohu Manah (good mind)
Dualist cosmology (Ahura Mazda vs. Angra Mainyu)

Both used SAME PIE roots: *h₂er- (order), *men- (mind), *h₂éwh₂- (soul), *weyd- (know/see), *h₃reǵ- (straight/true)

This proves: The six commitments (or analogues) are PIE inheritance, not Greek innovation.

CONCLUSION

Persian Preserves Extensive PIE Vocabulary Including Philosophical Terms:

Strong PIE inheritance:

Family, body, numbers, pronouns (100% PIE)
Basic verbs (being, knowing, seeing) (PIE)
Truth/order concepts (aša, rāst) (PIE)
Soul/mind concepts (ravan, jān, kherad) (PIE)

Most Important: Aša (PIE *h₂er-tós) = Persian equivalent of Vedic ṛta = objective cosmic/moral order (MORAL REALISM)

This shows: Persian independently preserved the same PIE philosophical commitments that Greek philosophy systematized, proving these commitments are ancient PIE folk philosophy (~4500+ BCE), not Greek innovations.

The six commitments: Embedded in PIE vocabulary preserved in Persian, Greek, Sanskrit, and other IE languages - suggesting common PIE folk philosophical worldview systematized independently by different IE cultures (Greek, Vedic, Persian/Zoroastrian).

``` **To use**: Simply copy the entire code block above and paste it into Blogger's HTML editor. All tables, formatting, and structure will display correctly.

Wednesday, January 21, 2026

The Complete Integrated System: Sterling's Core Stoicism + Six Commitments + Enchiridion 1-5 + Five Steps

The Complete Integrated System

Sterling's Core Stoicism + Six Commitments + Enchiridion 1-5 + Five Steps

I. The Four Components

What We're Integrating:

Sterling's Core Stoicism - Causal mechanism (theorems)
Sterling's Six Commitments - Metaphysical foundations
Enchiridion Chapters 1-5 - Epictetus's foundational teaching
Epictetus' Five Steps - Practice method

Goal: Seamless integration for real-time use

II. Enchiridion Chapters 1-5: Core Content

Chapter 1: The Fundamental Distinction

"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."

Core Teaching:

In our control (eph' hēmin): Judgments, desires, aversions, our actions
Not in our control: Body, externals, outcomes, others' actions
The fundamental distinction upon which everything rests

Sterling's Core Stoicism Connection:

Th 6: "Only beliefs and will are in our control"
Epictetus Chapter 1 = Foundation for Th 6

Six Commitments Connection:

Dualism: Required for in/out distinction (prohairesis ≠ body/world)
Freedom: "In our control" requires libertarian freedom

Chapter 2: Desire and Aversion Properly Directed

"Remember that following desire promises the attainment of that of which you are desirous; and aversion promises the avoiding that to which you are averse. However, he who fails to obtain the object of his desire is disappointed, and he who incurs the object of his aversion is wretched. If, then, you confine your aversion to those objects only which are contrary to the natural use of your faculties, which you have in your own control, you will never incur anything to which you are averse. But if you are averse to sickness, or death, or poverty, you will be wretched."

Core Teaching:

Desire only what's in your control (virtue)
Avoid only what's in your control (vice)
Never desire/avoid externals (sets up failure/wretchedness)

Sterling's Core Stoicism Connection:

Th 7: "Desires are caused by beliefs about good and evil"
Th 3: "All unhappiness from having desire + frustration"
Th 10: "Only virtue is good, only vice is evil"
Epictetus Chapter 2 = Practical application of Th 3, 7, 10

The Causal Chain:

Desire external → External doesn't comply → Disappointment (Th 3)
Averse to external → External occurs → Wretchedness (Th 3)
Solution: Desire only virtue → Always achievable → No disappointment

Chapter 3: Everything Has a Price

"With regard to whatever objects give you delight, are useful, or are deeply loved, remember to tell yourself of what general nature they are, beginning from the most insignificant things. If, for example, you are fond of a specific ceramic cup, remind yourself that it is only ceramic cups in general of which you are fond. Then, if it breaks, you will not be disturbed. If you kiss your child, or your wife, say that you only kiss things which are human, and thus you will not be disturbed if either of them dies."

Core Teaching:

Everything external is fragile (can be lost)
Remind yourself constantly of nature of things
"Only a human" = external, mortal, not in my control
Preparation prevents pathē when loss occurs

Sterling's Core Stoicism Connection:

Th 12: "Things not in our control are never good or evil"
Externals = indifferent (even beloved ones)
Don't treat as genuinely good (though preferred)
Loss of indifferent ≠ loss of good (no real harm)

The Practice:

See thing/person → Remind: "This is external, can be lost"
→ Enjoy appropriately (preferred indifferent)
→ Don't treat as genuinely good
→ If lost: Not devastated (was always indifferent)

Chapter 4: About to Act - Remind Yourself

"When you are going about any action, remind yourself what nature the action is. If you are going to bathe, picture to yourself the things which usually happen in the bath: some people splash the water, some push, some use abusive language, and others steal. Thus you will more safely go about this action if you say to yourself, 'I will now go bathe, and keep my own mind in a state conformable to nature.' And so with regard to every other action. For thus, if any hindrance arises in bathing, you will have it ready to say, 'It was not only to bathe that I desired, but to keep my mind in a state conformable to nature; and I will not keep it if I am bothered at things that happen.'"

Core Teaching:

Before acting: Rehearse what might happen
Expect obstacles (people will be difficult, things will go wrong)
Real goal: Maintain virtue (not achieve external outcome)
When obstacle occurs: "I expected this, virtue maintained"

Sterling's Core Stoicism Connection:

Distinguish: Internal goal (virtue) vs. External goal (outcome)
External outcome: Not guaranteed (not in control)
Internal virtue: Guaranteed (in control)
Success = virtue maintained (regardless of outcome)

The Practice:

Before action:

Identify external goal ("bathe")
Identify internal goal ("maintain virtue")
Rehearse obstacles ("people will splash, push, steal")
Commit to internal goal (virtue regardless of obstacles)

During action:

Obstacle occurs: "Expected this"
Maintain virtue: "Real goal achieved"
External fails: "Doesn't matter, virtue maintained"

Chapter 5: Disturbed by Things or Judgments?

"Men are disturbed, not by things, but by the principles and notions which they form concerning things. Death, for instance, is not terrible, else it would have appeared so to Socrates. But the terror consists in our notion of death that it is terrible. When therefore we are hindered, or disturbed, or grieved, let us never attribute it to others, but to ourselves; that is, to our own principles. An uninstructed person will lay the fault of his own bad condition upon others. Someone just starting instruction will lay the fault on himself. Some who is perfectly instructed will place blame neither on others nor on himself."

Core Teaching:

NOT things that disturb, but judgments about things
Death not terrible (Socrates proved this)
Our judgment "death is terrible" = the problem
Blame progression: Others → Self → No one (perfectly instructed)

Sterling's Core Stoicism Connection:

Th 7: "Desires are caused by beliefs about good and evil"
THE CRANKSHAFT: Judgment → Desire/Aversion → Emotion
Change judgment → Change emotion
This is THE KEY MECHANISM

Five Steps Connection:

This is WHY we examine impressions
Impressions contain judgments
Judgments cause emotions
Examine and correct judgment → Emotion changes

The Causal Analysis:

Wrong:

EVENT: Death approaches
IMPRESSION: "Death is terrible" (judgment)
ASSENT: Accept this judgment
RESULT: Terror (pathē)

Right:

EVENT: Death approaches
IMPRESSION: "Death is terrible" (judgment)
EXAMINATION: "Is death evil? No, external = indifferent"
REFUSE: Don't assent to false judgment
RESULT: No terror (equanimity)

III. The Five Steps Practice Method

Overview

Epictetus tells his students: "Stop! Let me have a moment. Let me see who you are and what you bring with you."

This operationalizes into five distinct cognitive steps:

Step 1: RECEPTION

What happens: Impression arrives (containing propositional judgment)

Enchiridion support:

Ch 5: Impression contains judgment about good/evil
Notice: Impression claims something about reality
Not yet: Assent or refuse
Just: Awareness of mental event

What's required: Dualism (separate receiver for impressions)

Step 2: RECOGNITION

What happens: Distinguish three things:

Event (external, not in my control)
Impression (judgment about event)
Me (prohairesis, can assent or refuse)

Enchiridion support:

Ch 1: Internal/external distinction
Ch 5: Thing vs. judgment about thing
Must see: These three are separate

What's required: Dualism + Correspondence (three distinct things exist)

Step 3: PAUSE

What happens: Suspend assent - create space between impression and response

Epictetus quote: "Stop! Let me have a moment. Let me see who you are and what you bring with you."

Enchiridion support:

Ch 4: Rehearsal creates prepared pause
Ch 5: Space to examine judgment
Odysseus: "Endure, my heart. You have endured worse than this before."

What's required: Libertarian Freedom + Dualism (real power to suspend)

Step 4: EXAMINATION

What happens: Test impression against Enchiridion 1-5 criteria

The Five Tests:

Ch 1 Test: Is this internal or external? (In my control or not?)
Ch 2 Test: Is this virtue, vice, or indifferent?
Ch 3 Test: Is this fragile/losable? (External = can lose)
Ch 4 Test: Can I maintain virtue regardless of outcome?
Ch 5 Test: Is my judgment causing disturbance? (Not the thing itself)

What's required: ALL SIX COMMITMENTS

Foundationalism: Axioms to test against (no infinite regress)
Moral Realism: Objective good/evil to test against
Correspondence: Can impression match reality?
Intuitionism: Direct grasp of categories (internal/external)
Dualism: Examiner separate from examined
Freedom: Could discover true OR false (not predetermined)

Step 5: DECISION

What happens: Assent, refuse assent, or suspend judgment

Three options:

Assent: If examination shows impression is true
Refuse: If examination shows impression contains false judgment
Suspend: If examination is inconclusive (need more information)

Enchiridion support:

All five chapters: Decision based on examination results
Ch 2: Refuse desires/aversions for externals
Ch 5: Refuse false judgments about things

What's required: Libertarian Freedom (real choice between alternatives)

IV. Sterling's Six Philosophical Commitments

Why These Commitments Are Required

The Five Steps method requires specific metaphysical commitments to work. Without them, the steps collapse.

1. DUALISM

Claim: Prohairesis (rational faculty) is ontologically separate from body and external world

Required for:

Step 1 (Reception): Separate receiver for impressions
Step 2 (Recognition): Distinguish impression from event
Step 3 (Pause): Observer separate from observed
Step 4 (Examination): Examiner not identical to examined

Without it: Brain examining brain states (circular), no separate receiver, can't distinguish three things

2. LIBERTARIAN FREEDOM

Claim: Agents have real power to choose otherwise (not determined by prior causes)

Required for:

Step 3 (Pause): Real suspension (not just predetermined delay)
Step 4 (Examination): Could discover true OR false (not predetermined outcome)
Step 5 (Decision): Genuine choice (not experiencing predetermined result)

Without it: "Pause" is neural delay, examination is theater, decision is illusion

3. CORRESPONDENCE THEORY OF TRUTH

Claim: Truth = matching reality (not coherence or pragmatic usefulness)

Required for:

Step 1 (Reception): Impression makes claim about reality
Step 2 (Recognition): Event is objective (not mental construct)
Step 4 (Examination): Can test if impression matches reality

Without it: No objective reality to test against, only coherence with other beliefs (circular)

4. MORAL REALISM

Claim: Objective good and evil exist (not subjective preferences or social constructs)

Required for:

Step 4 (Examination): Can test if X is genuinely good/evil
Binding force: "Virtue is good" not just opinion

Without it: "Virtue is good" = Stoic preference (no more binding than hedonist preference)

5. FOUNDATIONALISM

Claim: Knowledge rests on self-evident axioms (not infinite regress or circular reasoning)

Required for:

Step 4 (Examination): Terminate testing in self-evident truths
Th 10: "Only virtue is good" = foundational axiom
Th 12: "Externals are indifferent" = foundational axiom

Without it: "Why is virtue good?" → "Because..." → "Why?" → infinite regress → paralysis

6. INTUITIONISM (Rational Intuition)

Claim: Direct rational grasp of categories (good/evil, internal/external) without inference from sense data

Required for:

Step 2 (Recognition): Immediate recognition "this is external"
Step 4 (Examination): Real-time categorization (too slow if must prove everything)
Enchiridion Ch 1, 3: Instant distinction internal/external

Without it: Must prove from observation → too slow for real-time practice

V. Integration Map: How Components Connect

SIX COMMITMENTS (Metaphysical Foundation)
    ↓ [enable]
ENCHIRIDION 1-5 (Fundamental Teachings)
    │
    ├─ Ch 1: Internal/External distinction
    ├─ Ch 2: Desire/Aversion properly directed
    ├─ Ch 3: Everything external is fragile
    ├─ Ch 4: Rehearse obstacles, maintain virtue
    └─ Ch 5: Judgments disturb, not things
    ↓ [systematized in]
CORE STOICISM (Theorems - Causal Mechanism)
    │
    ├─ Th 6: Only beliefs/will in control (Ch 1)
    ├─ Th 7: Judgments → Desires → Emotions (Ch 5)
    ├─ Th 3: Desire + Frustration = Unhappiness (Ch 2)
    ├─ Th 10: Only virtue good, only vice evil (Ch 2)
    └─ Th 12: Externals never good/evil (Ch 3)
    ↓ [guides]
FIVE STEPS (Practice Method)
    │
    ├─ Reception: Impression arrives
    ├─ Recognition: Three things distinct (Ch 1)
    ├─ Pause: Suspend assent
    ├─ Examination: Test judgment (Ch 5)
    └─ Decision: Refuse false, accept true
    ↓ [produces]
EUDAIMONIA (Complete happiness through virtue alone)

VI. Why Each Step Requires Specific Commitments

Step	Primary Commitments Required	What Breaks Without Them
1. Reception	Dualism, Correspondence	No separate receiver, no truth claim to test
2. Recognition	Dualism, Correspondence	Can't distinguish three things (all physical/fused)
3. Pause	Libertarian Freedom, Dualism	Pause = illusion (just predetermined delay)
4. Examination	ALL SIX	Circular, infinite regress, too slow, or predetermined
5. Decision	Libertarian Freedom (+ all supporting examination)	Decision predetermined or arbitrary

VII. Application to Personality Disorders

The Training Method

Each personality disorder represents a systematic pattern of false value judgments that have become habitual and automatic.

The Five Steps provide the training method to:

Recognize the characteristic false judgments of each type
Pause before automatically assenting
Examine against Stoic criteria (Enchiridion 1-5)
Refuse false judgments about externals
Practice correct judgment until it becomes natural

Example: Schizoid Type

Characteristic False Judgment: "Relationships are genuinely bad (evil), solitude is genuinely good"

Five Steps Training:

Reception: Impression arises: "Social invitation - this is intrusive and bad"
Recognition: Distinguish:
- Event: Social invitation (external)
- Impression: "This is intrusive and bad" (judgment)
- Me: Can assent or refuse
Pause: "Stop! Let me see who you are and what you bring"
Examination:
- Ch 1: Social connection is external (not in my control)
- Ch 2: Neither virtue nor vice (indifferent)
- Ch 3: All relationships fragile (can be lost)
- Ch 4: Can maintain virtue whether I attend or not
- Ch 5: My judgment "relationships are bad" causes aversion (not the invitation itself)
Decision: Refuse false judgment that relationships are genuinely bad; recognize as preferred indifferent

Result: Can pursue appropriate object of aim (social connection as preferred indifferent) without falsely treating it as genuinely good/bad

VIII. Quick Reference Cards

CARD 1: Enchiridion 1-5 Essentials

CH 1: Some things in control, others not
Focus on what's in control (prohairesis)

CH 2: Desire only what's in control (virtue)
Avoid only what's in control (vice)

CH 3: Everything external is fragile
Remind yourself: Can be lost

CH 4: Before acting, rehearse obstacles
Real goal: Maintain virtue

CH 5: Judgments disturb, not things
Change judgment → Change emotion

CARD 2: Core Stoicism + Enchiridion

Th 6 = Ch 1: Only beliefs/will in control
Th 7 = Ch 5: Judgments → Desires → Emotions
Th 3 = Ch 2: Wrong desire → Frustration → Pathē
Th 10 = Ch 2: Only virtue good, only vice evil
Th 12 = Ch 3: Externals never good/evil
Th 14 = Result: Value only virtue → Eudaimonia

CARD 3: Five Steps + Enchiridion Tests

1. RECEPTION: Impression arrives (Ch 5)

2. RECOGNITION: Three things (Ch 1)

Event (external)
Impression (judgment)
Me (prohairesis)

3. PAUSE: Suspend (Ch 4)

4. EXAMINATION: Test all five

Ch 1: Internal/External?
Ch 2: Virtue/Vice/Indifferent?
Ch 3: Fragile/Losable?
Ch 4: Can maintain virtue?
Ch 5: Judgment disturbing?

5. DECISION: Refuse false, accept true

IX. The Complete Integration Statement

"Epictetus's Enchiridion Chapters 1-5 provide the fundamental Stoic teachings (internal/external distinction, proper desire/aversion, fragility of externals, obstacle rehearsal, judgments as cause of disturbance), which are systematized in G. Sterling's Core Stoicism theorems (Th 6, 7, 3, 10, 12, 14), applied through the Five Steps practice method (Reception, Recognition, Pause, Examination, Decision), all enabled by G. Sterling's six metaphysical commitments (Dualism, Freedom, Correspondence, Realism, Foundationalism, Intuitionism), producing eudaimonia when practiced correctly."

This integration makes the complete system ready at hand for real-time use.