Skip to main contentSkip to solution

Stoicism was founded in 300 BC by the Greek philosopher Zeno and survived into the Roman era until about AD 300. According to the Stoics, emotions consist of two movements. The first movement is the immediate feeling and other reactions (e.g., physiological response) that occur when a stimulus or event occurs. For instance, consider what could have happened if an army general accused Marcus Aurelius of treason in front of other officers. The first movement for Marcus may have been (internal) surprise and anger in response to this insult, accompanied perhaps by some involuntary physiological and expressive responses such as face flushing and a movement of the eyebrows. The second movement is what one does next about the emotion. Second movement behaviors occur after thinking and are under one's control. Examples of second movements for Marcus might have included a plot to seek revenge, actions signifying deference and appeasement, or perhaps proceeding as he would have proceeded whether or not this event occurred: continuing to lead the Romans in a way that Marcus Aurelius believed best benefited them. In the Stoic view, choosing a reasoned, unemotional response as the second movement is the only appropriate response.

The Stoics believed that to live the good life and be a good person, we need to free ourselves of nearly all desires such as too much desire for money, power, or sexual gratification. Prior to second movements, we can consider what is important in life. Money, power, and excessive sexual gratification are not important. Character, rationality, and kindness are important. The Epicureans, first associated with the Greek philosopher Epicurus, held a similar view, believing that people should enjoy simple pleasures, such as good conversation, friendship, food, and wine, but not be indulgent in these pursuits and not follow passion for those things that hold no real value like power and money. As Oatley (2004) states, "the Epicureans articulated a view-enjoyment of relationship with friends, of things that are real rather than illusory, simple rather than artificially inflated, possible rather than vanishingly unlikely that is certainly relevant today". In sum, these ancient Greek and Roman philosophers saw emotions, especially strong ones, as potentially dangerous. They viewed emotions as experiences that needed to be reined in and controlled.

As Oatley (2004) points out, the Stoic idea bears some similarity to Buddhism. Buddha, living in India in the 6th century BC, argued for cultivating a certain attitude that decreases the probability of (in Stoic terms) destructive second movements. Through meditation and the right attitude, one allows emotions to happen to oneself (it is impossible to prevent this), but one is advised to observe the emotions without necessarily acting on them; one achieves some distance and decides what has value and what does not have value. Additionally, the Stoic idea of developing virtue in oneself, of becoming a good person, which the Stoics believed we could do because we have a touch of the divine, laid the foundation for the three monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. As with Stoicism, tenets of these religions include controlling our emotions lest we engage in sinful behavior.

Which one of the following statements would be an accurate inference from the example of Marcus Aurelius?

Solution

āœ… Correct Option: 2

From passage: "continuing to lead the Romans in a way that Marcus Aurelius believed best benefited them"

The passage uses Marcus Aurelius as a hypothetical example to explain Stoic emotions -> it describes what "could have happened" and what his responses "might have included" -> this means most details are just possibilities, not facts.

But one clear fact emerges -> the passage says he was "leading the Romans" -> this directly tells us his role.


šŸ”“ Option 1 -> hypothetical-error -> says he "plotted revenge" but passage only lists this as one possible second movement, not what actually happened

🟢 Option 2 -> correct -> directly supported by "lead the Romans" statement -> this is the only factual claim about Marcus Aurelius in the passage

šŸ”“ Option 3 -> assumption-error -> assumes "humiliation" but passage only mentions possible "surprise and anger" -> doesn't say he felt humiliated

🟠 Option 4 -> knowledge-gap -> while historically true, the passage never directly states Marcus Aurelius was a Stoic -> it just uses him as an example to explain Stoic philosophy -> you can't infer this from the passage alone

The key trick here -> distinguish between what the passage directly states vs what it uses as hypothetical examples -> only Option 2 gives us a direct fact about Marcus Aurelius.

Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Left arrow: Previous question
  • Right arrow: Next question
  • S key: Jump to solution
  • Q key: Jump to question