Stoic Indifferents Explained: How To Want Without Suffering

If Stoicism says health isn't good and money isn't good, then what's the point of anything? That's the question most people get stuck on — and it's the question that almost made me give up on Stoic philosophy entirely.

The answer comes down to a distinction the ancient Stoics made that rarely gets taught properly: the difference between moral value and selective value. One determines your character. The other determines how you navigate Tuesday.

In this talk, you'll learn the two Greek terms — axia eklektikē and apaxia — that unlock the part of Stoicism most people are missing. You'll understand why the Stoics weren't telling you to want nothing, but showing you how to want things without being wrecked by them. And you'll get a simple question you can ask yourself today to find out whether you're holding something lightly or clinging to it.

Transcript

Here's something that I hear a lot. If Stoicism says health isn't good, And money isn't good, And reputation isn't good, Then what's the point in anything? Honestly, The first time I encountered the idea properly, Not skimming it in meditations but actually sitting with it, I had the same reaction. Hang on a second. If none of this matters, If the externals are indifferent, Why am I getting up at six to go to the gym? Why am I building anything? What's the point? It felt like Stoicism was pulling the rug from under the things that kept me going, Like it was kind of telling me to want nothing. There's a ton of nuance in Stoicism though, And that's not what Stoicism really means. That's a misreading. And today, In this session, I want to give you the piece that most people are missing, The piece that makes the whole system click. And it comes down to two ancient Greek terms, Axia aklektikae and apaxia. Don't worry about pronouncing them yet. By the end of the episode, You will know what they mean and why they matter and how to use them to stop confusing preference with things that make you panic. Quick orientation. In Stoicism, There are only two things that carry real moral weight, Virtue, Which is genuinely good, And vice, Which is genuinely bad. And that's it for the moral categories, Virtue and vice. And everything else, Like your health and your savings and your reputation and how physically attractive you are and whether the meeting goes well and whether your kid sleeps through the night, All of it falls into a third category the Stoics called indifference. Now, The word indifferent is a pretty terrible way to describe this. Because when most people hear that, They think it means not caring. Walk past the burning building, Shrug at the redundancy notice. Just be indifferent, Blasé, Laissez-faire. And that's not what it means. It means not decisive for whether you live well as a moral agent. You can live a good life with money or without money. You can live a good life if you're healthy or if you're ill. Virtue doesn't require a comfortable set of circumstances. That's the point. I'll say that previous line again. It means not decisive for whether you live well as a moral agent. But here's where it gets tricky. And this is the question I couldn't answer for about a year of reading Stoic texts. If these things external to us, The things not within our control, Aren't good or aren't bad, How can you pick between any of them? Why wouldn't you go through life flipping a coin? Why bother with a morning routine or a pension or a doctor's appointment if none of it is actually good? And the Stoics saw this problem coming in a way. Because without a second layer of value, The whole system collapses into paralysis. You'd be virtuous, Okay, But you'd have no rational basis for picking one action over another. And a philosophy that can't help you navigate your average Monday is a philosophy that stays on the shelf. So they made a distinction. And this is really careful. Moral value is virtue. That's who you are. And then the second layer is selective value. That's about what reason recommends you choose given whatever circumstances you find yourself in. So two different kinds of value, Two different registers. The first one matters for your character. The second one matters for getting through the day. So the Greek term is axia eclecticae, Axia eclecticae. Axia means weight or value, Not moral goodness, Just importance. And eclecticae comes from a verb meaning to choose out, To select. So you put them together and you get something worth selecting. To select based on weight or value. So it's not something good. It's not something that makes you a better person. It's something reason says you'd be sensible to choose if all else was equal. Health has selective value, Not because it makes you virtuous, Plenty of healthy people are terrible, But because it supports you functioning well enough to actually practice virtue. So it's hard to do your evening reflection when you're in A&E, For example. Enough money to live, Selective value. Not because wealth equals worth, But because grinding poverty narrows your options so severely that everything becomes survival. Safety, Shelter, Basic relationships, All selectively valuable. Think about a video game, Right? Your character has certain attributes, Strength, Health, Intelligence, And those attributes don't make you win. They just make it possible to play effectively. Selective value is the stats, But virtue is how you play. So we'll stick on the video game analogy for a moment longer because it does make a lot of sense. The Stoics would kind of say, We're putting this video game, And the most important thing, The only thing that is truly good or bad is how you play the game. But if they're playing the video game and they get the option to increase their speed or strength on the video game, They would say, Okay, Sure, We'll take it. It has selective value, But that is not a necessity for the way that I show up to play. This distinction changes how you hold things because you can pursue health and money and stability in a rational way, But don't be fooled into believing that getting them makes you good or losing them makes you bad. And the flip side is something called apaxia, Apaxia. The A prefix just means lacking. So apaxia is this value. Something lacking in selective value, Something reason says you'd be sensible to avoid if you can. So injury, Poverty, Chronic pain, Isolation, None of these are evil. Sickness isn't vice. Losing your job isn't a moral failure. They're just counter preferred. They add friction to daily functioning. And this is the key move. Avoid them when you can without believing that avoiding them makes you good. Avoid them when you can without believing that avoiding them makes you good. I think about this when it comes to health anxiety, Which is something I dealt with a lot more than I would like to admit, Especially years ago. There's a version of me that goes to the GP and gets blood tests and eats well because reason says this supports a functioning life. That's axia eclecticae. But then there's also a version of me that lies awake 2 a. M. Googling symptoms because I've confused health with goodness. And now losing it feels like losing everything. And that's not rational selection. That's attachment dressed up as self-care. The same action on the surface, But there's a completely different intention or relationship underneath. Now, Why does this matter for you? Well, This distinction is what stops stoicism from becoming cold. Without it, You get the version of stoicism that says nothing matters, Feel nothing, Want nothing, Which isn't stoicism. That's suffering with a philosophical alibi. You are allowed to prefer health. You are allowed to prefer stability. You are allowed to want things to go well. But what you're not allowed to do if you want any kind of peace is confuse preference with necessity. You select health. You don't cling to health. You pursue meaningful work. You don't stake your identity on the outcome. And I'll be honest, Okay, I get this wrong constantly. I notice it with work. I'll put something out, An episode, A piece of writing, And I catch myself refreshing the numbers. And in that moment, I've slid from this is worth doing to this has to succeed for me to be okay. Selective value has become moral value. And the anxiety that follows is the receipt. The practice isn't getting it right permanently. It's catching the slide into it. So here's something I want you to try today. Pick one thing you're currently anxious about. It could be money or health, A relationship, A project, Something at work, And ask yourself one question. Am I treating this as worth selecting or as morally necessary? If it's the first, If reason is doing the choosing, You can hold it lightly. Pursue it. Adjust when it doesn't go your way. Let go if you have to. If it's the second, If your sense of self is riding on it, Distress is already baked in, You've made an indifferent into a good, And that's where you'll suffer. The Stoics weren't trying to strip life of meaning. They were giving you a way to want things without being destroyed by them. Preference without panic.

Reviews

Illuminating and so clearly articulated, my understanding has deepened. Many thanks

Thank you Jon, Stoicism fascinates me, so I really enjoy your explanations.

Thank you Jon. So critical. I’ll listen to this again 🙏🏻💕✨🌴

Excellent. Very Buddhist. Great explanation of how to reconcile the paradox of being human but aspiring for liberation. 🙏🏾

This was an amazing talk. It brought me so much clarity. Thank you, Jon, as always, for your incredible work! 🙏🏻