Hopefully, your week went well. Perhaps you read last week’s post and attempted the exercise. If not, you can pop back there and have a look.
A Week of Catching Impressions
There’s nothing like reading and listening to Stoic material on impressions to focus your attention on the subject. So in having practised, read, reread, and rechecked sources, I would have been surprised if I hadn’t noticed impressions.
I noticed them, particularly in interpersonal relations, where I was able, relatively quickly, to modulate my responses to tense situations and avoid making fraught situations worse. I noticed an awful lot of sighs this week and was able to judge their intent as primarily not directed at me, and on the odd occasion they were, I was able to temper my reaction to be more rational.
Where I noted extreme difficulty was in the impressions that form in reaction to the imaginative world solely between my ears. I mentioned the issue of anxiety in a previous post. Sometimes I think it's the curse of a relatively good imagination, but I can have extended scenarios play out in my head concerning situations that may or may not occur with people who cause friction in my life. The horse had bolted all the way to Texas by the time I could remind myself that this stampede of thought was caused by an impression formed solely from my imagination. So that’s my focus this week, to realise when those internal horses are ready to bolt.
Judgement Formation
So as you may have picked up from reading the above, I had begun to practice the next part of the exercise - the forming of judgements. Pigliucci and Lopez break the formation of judgement formation in four stages. For ease of understanding, I have created the graphic below:
In today’s post, I want to concentrate on that space between surfacing impressions and agreement and assent. I’ll use the “frustrated sigh” (see, already making judgements- it’s just a sigh) example, but the process applies equally well to negative self-talk or staring forlornly at an open fridge when you’re bored.
The “Frustrated” Sigh
Someone in your presence utters a seemingly frustrated sigh. At the Initial Stirrings stage, you may have a) all the past judgements you have made about this person’s reasons for sighing, b) your current mood, c) your memories of their personality, and d) your current blood sugar level—all fertile ground for a poor judgement.
At the Surfacing Impressions stage ( the topic of last week’s post), you might be inclined to think: “What have I done now?”. Your impression could be correct. You did indeed forget to hang out the washing, and they are annoyed at you. But between the Surfacing Impression and Agreement or Assent to that impression is where logic needs to be deployed. Ask yourself, Is the impression accurate? What is the evidence that the impression is true? The only evidence for the impression might be your own poor mood and a previous interaction earlier in the day. If there’s insufficient evidence, reserve your assent.
Let’s say, though, that they are annoyed at you. Is the annoyance understandable? A result of your failure to hang out the aforementioned laundry. Then you can modify your response (Movement to Action) and probably hang out that laundry ASAP. I don’t think most would have an issue with that.
It's when the opposite occurs that the stoics might differ in their response from those not following the philosophy.
Let’s say that the sigh is directed at you, and it is unwarranted or unjustified. Another member of the household was responsible(irresponsible). Most of us would say that the target of the sigh would be within their rights to be miffed or put out (even a little angry). The Stoics would disagree. They would say your character has not been harmed. The misdirected ire has not damaged you. The misdirected ire is not bad, and it’s just misdirected ire (more damaging to the person sighing than the target).
Our identification of things being good or bad often forms the basis of poor judgement. Being wrongly accused of being a recalcitrant launderer is bad and justifies angry action; the new iPhone is a pleasure (good). I should get one.
Pigliucci and Lopez1 suggest identifying what we presume is good or bad in a situation. This allows you to challenge whether or not they are good or bad (to the Stoics, virtue is the only good and ignorance the only bad) and counter that impression.
Situation: Rising anger at my significant other for their misdirected blame → Presumption: that misdirected blame is bad/unjust/unfair → Challenge: How many times have I wrongly apportioned blame ( to err is human) + I am not harmed.
So there’s your (my) homework for the week. Counter your impressions. I find that after a while, at least in my interactions with others, I can do this in my head. But I suggest that if you are new to the process, particularly dealing with powerful emotions, you might want to write down instances after the fact. I still do this when I fail.
Why are we doing this again?
Correct judgement moves us toward being more rational and social creatures and moves us toward virtue - knowing the right thought or action in a given situation.
A Handbook for New Stoics pg 222.