Lesson 9

What About Others?

Dealing with Difficult People

Read

At first glance, this entry of his notebook Marcus undeniably paints a gloomy prospect of the coming day. Although he does not explicitly note it, there is no doubt that he will also meet with competent, honest and faithful people, if not frequently, then at least some of the time.

But Marcus’ present task is to remind himself how he should respond to the ‘meddling, ungrateful, violent, treacherous, envious, and ungrateful’ people with whom he anticipates coming into contact. Many people either rarely or never take the trouble to consciously think through how best to deal with ‘difficult people’. Perhaps because such difficult people just are a fact of life, many people, most of the time, simply respond to them on a moment by moment basis, getting angry (not necessarily in their presence), being critical, or even plotting against them, as seems appropriate on some intuitive level. Operating in such an ad hoc fashion is, fairly clearly, unlikely to encourage any real improvements on the part of difficult people, and it certainly does not promote a tranquil and unperturbed life for those who employ this approach.

The Stoics claim that it is entirely possible to live amongst, and to work with, difficult people at the same time as remaining unruffled and undisturbed by their actions. It may even be possible, with judicious care, to provide a positive example to such people, and although rare, we sometimes get the opportunity to help them to find a more rational approach to their goals. Indeed, as has been indicated previously, the Stoics were famous for their unfailing serenity.

Write: In section 2.1 Marcus makes several different points that, if he can bear them in mind and act appropriately in consequence, will enable him to retain his Stoic serenity in the midst of any upset caused by difficult people. Carefully read this paragraph again, and identify the points that Marcus makes in your journal. [See Footnote 1 if you need an example of the points that Marcus is making]

What Motivates People?

Read

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, 6.27, 7.26, 8.14 and 10.37.

People pursue what they believe will benefit them. Their capacity to judge what is truly beneficial may be, as the Stoics think, flawed, but all the same says Marcus, they are merely ‘striving after what they regard as suitable and beneficial’ (6.27).

Our becoming upset or resentful at the actions of others, Marcus suggests, is actually a failing on our part to understand their motivations. Moreover, our emotional reaction denies them the potential benefit of being taught a better way. This idea is expanded upon in 7.26 where Marcus talks in terms of a ‘conception of good and evil’. Clearly, those aiming to perfect their characters as Stoics hold a very different view of what is truly good and bad.

Why do 'bad people' do bad things then? In their minds, they aren't! From their own perspective what they do is good, since they benefit from what they do, or at least they think they do. Seeing that this is the case, not only can we begin to understand why people do bad things, we may even start to anticipate what they are likely to actually do. If we attempt to answer Marcus’ question, ‘What ideas does this person hold on human goods and ills?’ (8.14) we may even be able to second-guess someone’s actions.

If we do this well, what they do ‘will not seem extraordinary or strange’, indeed, what they do can be regarded as inevitable, given their beliefs, to the extent that acting in accord with those beliefs ‘constrain’ the agent to act as they do.

In trying to understand other people, however, we must not loose sight of trying to understand ourselves. In 10.37 Marcus reminds us to examine ourselves before we examine others. With respect to our own actions it is imperative that we ask of ourselves, ‘What is my aim in performing this action?’ To be sure, finding ways of responding to this question has been the underlying project of these lessons.

Write

Think back to a recent time when someone you know did something that you, or even society as a whole, thinks of as being a 'bad thing.' Knowing them as you do, try to dig into what may have motivated them to act in this way. What are their beliefs about what is good and bad in this situation? What could their ultimate motivations have been? Were their goals wholly evil, or just the means they sought to achieve those goals? Most importantly, did their actions truly benefit them in the end, or was more harm caused? Finally, repeat the same exercise, this time, using one of your own 'mistakes' as the basis for the examination.

Accepting other people

Read

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, 5.17, 5.25, 7.1 and 7.22.

Other people do what they do because they think it is for the best. And we have to accept that, and decide to remain calm and untroubled when we find ourselves affected by the actions of ‘people of bad character’ (5.17). If someone harms us, that is their affair (5.25). Our responsibility as Stoics who claim to possess the insights of philosophical wisdom is to respond with virtuous actions on every occasion.

We may mistake Marcus’ tone in 7.1 for pessimism. Certainly he is resigned, but that resignation results from powerful and deeply cherished philosophical principles. It is founded on a deep trust that the universe is operating, always, as it does by following the same rules that govern our lives as those of others. As we now know, Stoics believe that we have been assigned our own unique destiny which we have a duty to live up to. This is what we mean by ‘living according our nature’. Bad behaviour however, ‘vice’, just is a fact of life for human beings. Do not be surprised when it is encountered, Marcus reminds us, for ‘this is something that you have often seen.’

One of the previous readings was from Meditations 7.57, where Marcus says: ‘Love only that which falls to you and is spun as the thread of your destiny; for what could be better suited to you?’ Specifically, in 7.22, Marcus says that we should love ‘those who stumble’, and that such love will arise in us when we recall that such people ‘do wrong through ignorance and against their will’.

Marcus concludes by remarking that in any event, the ‘wrongdoer’ cannot actually harm us, because the only harm we can suffer is to fall into vice; only our projects can suffer harm, whereas we ourselves as moral agents are invulnerable. Should we think we are harmed – subject to our not falling into vice – we would be mistaken.

Write

Consider someone close to you who has done something that you would have considered harmful in the past. You may still hold some residual emotional pain at the memory. Is it possible for you, knowing now that they acted, however misguidedly, according to what they thought best, to now begin to accept them, perhaps even forgive them? Note your thoughts in your journal.

Stoics do not necessarily forget, or erase, 'wrongs' done to them. When someone or something has acted in a harmful way, allowing them to repeat the harm goes counter to our 'learning from experience.' Stoics do not, however, hold a grudge, remain angry or resentful, all of which are passions brought on by holding to the false belief that somehow your 'ruling reason' has been damaged as a result. In this way, Stoics can be caring parents who are nevertheless not permissive, just judges who are not vengeful, and firm police and military personnel who do not succumb to rage and excessive violence.

Handling Criticism and Gossip

Sometimes we fall prey to foolish or malicious people, who think badly of us and who attempt to portray us in a bad light for reasons, we now recognise, that make sense from their perspective. These people are, in essence, allowing others to control their behaviours and choices in exchange for their approval. The more cruel the attacker is in his or her criticism, the more desperate some people seem to be in their desire to win their approval.

Read

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, 4.18 and 9.34.

In many ways, the Stoic remains indifferent to what other people think or say of them. As practitioners of the Stoic art of living, it makes no difference to our capacity for acting well that other people may be thinking badly of us or spreading malicious gossip. We must remind ourselves often that when the bad person supposes that ‘their criticisms harm or their praises bring benefit’ (9.34), they are simply mistaken. And we must not make the same mistake ourselves by believing that their criticisms or praises can actually harm us, because it is our actions and reactions that determine our good.

If we are confident that we are acting as we should, there is no need for us to think even for a moment of amending our actions in the hope that others who have criticised us will come to approve of us. However, there is an important distinction between criticism intended to harm us, and criticism intended to help up. If we react emotionally and equally to all criticism, however delivered, we risk missing opportunities to learn from the perspective and experience of others. As none of us are Sages, we will continue to need each other to learn.

Criticism should not always be dismissed out of hand, for we should remain alert to the possibility that we have made a mistake and need to do something differently. There are times, possibly many times, that even the most 'cruel' of criticisms may contain a kernel of truth regarding the limits of our knowledge, or the quality of our work. In these cases, when we have examined the statement, we may feel confident that we can adjust our own behaviour to make us better at what we are doing. But when we do adjust our course, this is done not to appease criticisms (though such appeasement may in fact occur), but in order that we should do the right thing.

Write

In your journal, recall a recent case where you were criticized for your actions or behaviour. Try to strip away the emotional content, bruised pride or cruel intent of the criticism. Examine the statement as calmly and objectively as you can. Is there any truth the claim? Are their perspectives that you had not considered in the past? Note the actual lesson, and write about how it will change you behaviour in the future.

How should we react?

Read

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, 5.32, 10.30 and 11.13.

As Stoics, who are gaining a measure of knowledge and skill in the Art of living, it is obviously irrational to be troubled by an ‘unskilled and ignorant soul’ (5.32). A master carpenter, who skill and art has been honed by years of learning and experience, would be unwise to fly into a rage or get personally affronted when encountering shoddy workmanship. Even if an unskilled 'handyman' would critique his work or technique, the master carpenter would chalk it up to a gap in the amateur's training and understand of the finer point of carpentry.

The same principle applies to us. We should not be troubled by those whose own perspectives on living are leading them to vicious act. Remembering that when in their position, we once acted in similar ways, and therefore should forget our anger (10.30) once it has arisen. For feeling anger towards wrongdoers would amount to discarding, or at least temporarily forgetting, the bulk of Stoic teaching. To accept this teaching, in part, is to accept that we do not in fact have anything to feel angry about.

Marcus points to the core of Stoic ethics in 11.13 where he reminds himself that the person who feels contempt or hatred for him must look to their own thoughts and actions. For this is in that person’s power. How Marcus will react to this person is in his power, and this is where he will apply himself, to make sure that he never does anything that merits contempt or hatred. And this is done by striving on all occasions to do what is appropriate, demonstrating virtuous thought and action, and aiming to make progress in the development of an excellent character. Although we seek no reward in adopting this way of life, if we find ourselves ‘neither disposed to be angry at anything nor make any complaint’ (11.13) we will be in receipt of the serenity for which the most outstanding Stoics were famed.

Write

Using the example you from the previous exercise, examine your thoughts and feelings regarding the person in question. Are you still angry or resentful towards them? Are you embarrassed by their criticism of you? If there are amends to be made, have you made them? If not for the example above, try to find another example where you still hold some residual anger, and repeat the last exercise, as well as this one.

For the Stoics, the fact that people behave badly has a strikingly obvious explanation: they have ‘no knowledge of good and bad’. Difficult people simply do not see things the way the Stoic does. Rather, they value indifferent things and feel threatened when the indifferent things in which they are interested are themselves threatened. But Marcus, having ‘beheld the nature of the good’ knows that he himself cannot be harmed by anything that difficult people do. The harm they cause is in fact self-inflicted, and results from their having not been shown that the good for human beings consists in developing and exercising a virtuous (i.e., excellent) character.
Nevertheless, even difficult people possess a rationality which is identical to that of the Stoic sage – it’s just that for these people their rationality has not been tutored. Marcus reminds himself that difficult people have a nature that is ‘akin’ to his own, in that all people share with him a mind that is a portion of the divine mind.
In consequence of this insight Marcus declares that he cannot be harmed by such people (as we noted above).
Further, he has no grounds to be angry with them nor to hate them.
The idea of sharing a common nature (the rationality and mind of the universe) is extended to embrace the idea that all people ‘come into being to work together’ – upon which Marcus gives us the examples of a foot, a hand, an eyelid or one row of teeth, none of which can function properly without their opposite number.
Indeed, ‘to work against one another is contrary to nature’, is contrary to how we have been created and what is proper to us as sentient creatures. Specifically, to be angry with someone is to ‘work against them’, and is contrary to nature, which means it is contrary to our natures as human beings endowed with reason.