Intimacy and Stoic Philosophy

Ward Farnsworth, in The Practicing Stoic, says:

Image by Natalia Lavrinenko from Pixabay

“The Stoic would rather have wealth than not have it, and would prefer to do without adversity. But we have to distinguish between preferences and attachments. The difference between them can be seen most easily by comparing how you feel when they aren’t satisfied. Imagine wanting one thing more than another and not getting it, but not being too upset as a result. That sort of wish is what we might call a (mere) preference. Having what you prefer is pleasing, and not having it is a disappointment, but it’s no threat to your equanimity.”

The stoics consider those things that we desire but don’t have any control over as “Externals”. Things like having wealth, or getting intimacy depends on- not yourself- but other external people and things.

Now, as someone who is hungry of emotional and sexual intimacy, my question is:
How do you cope with internal externals? The fact that I am not getting any intimacy (or sex) makes me get worked up. It’s a very internal desire. Yet it is external.

Claude AI beautifully answered this:

Regarding your question about coping with what you call “internal externals” — this is actually a nuanced area in Stoic thought. The desire for intimacy is indeed complex from a Stoic perspective because it involves both internal aspects (your feelings, desires) and external factors (requires another person).

From a Stoic viewpoint, you might approach this challenge in several ways:

Focus on what’s within your control — You can’t control whether intimacy happens, but you can control how you respond to its absence and the actions you take to create opportunities for connection.

Examine your judgments — The Stoics would suggest examining why the lack of intimacy causes suffering. Is it the physical desire itself, or judgments you’ve attached to it (e.g., what it means about you)?

Practice acceptance — Acknowledge that some desires, while natural, cannot always be fulfilled when we want.

Reframe your perspective — Consider whether you’re viewing intimacy as a “preferred indifferent” (something naturally preferred but not necessary for eudaimonia or flourishing) versus a necessity.

Focus on virtue — Direct energy toward developing character virtues that can help you navigate this challenge with wisdom.

This isn’t about suppressing natural desires but rather about finding a balanced approach that acknowledges them without letting them control your wellbeing. The Stoics recognized that we are social beings with natural inclinations, but also emphasized our capacity to find contentment through our approach to life’s circumstances.

Now keep this context in mind and read on

In the next page of the same chapter, Ward Farnsworth says:

“We attach ourselves to externals that we imagine we can control but really can’t, and deceive ourselves about them routinely — habits that make us unhappy and unfree.”

Let’s tie this back to my pain point of not receiving any intimacy. My question pertaining to this is:

How do I assess which things we have control over? For example, I can simply go to an escort to find intimacy. Is this the stoic way or is it epicureanism?

Claude answers:

Your question about assessing control from a Stoic perspective is quite pertinent. The Stoics, particularly Epictetus (whose name I notice is mentioned at the bottom of the visible text), divided things into what is “up to us” (eph’ hemin) and what is “not up to us” (ouk eph’ hemin).

From a Stoic perspective:

What’s truly in our control includes: our judgments, intentions, desires, aversions, and our own choices/actions.

What’s not in our control includes: the outcomes of our actions, others’ responses, external circumstances, and physical conditions.

Regarding your specific example about seeking intimacy through an escort:

The Stoic approach would not be prescriptive about the specific action (visiting an escort), but would focus on:

• Your intentions and reasoning behind the decision
• Whether you’re acting virtuously
• Whether you’re managing your expectations about outcomes
• Whether you’re treating all involved with dignity and respect

The Stoics weren’t necessarily against pleasure (unlike some misconceptions), but they viewed it as a “preferred indifferent” — something that might be naturally preferred but not essential to living a good life.

In contrast, Epicureanism more directly focused on the pursuit of pleasure (though thoughtful, moderate pleasure) as a central aim of life.

The Stoic way would involve:

• Examining your motivations (Are you acting out of impulse or careful reasoning?)
• Considering the virtue of the action (Does it align with justice, courage, moderation, and wisdom?)
• Accepting that the outcome (whether satisfying or not) remains outside your control
• Not becoming dependent on external sources for your well-being

The key Stoic question isn’t “Is this action permitted?” but rather “What kind of person am I becoming through this choice, and am I maintaining my agency over my judgments and desires?”

This is a breath of fresh air- contrary to religious sermons involving “Don’t do this, that and anything in between.”

But Let’s Play The Devil’s Advocate

Going to an escort might buy me intimacy for a day, but she wont be there to celebrate my success or console me when I fail. Also, if I fall in love with the Escort and suddenly she becomes aloof after her service time finishes, I might become sad.

Claude says:

You’ve raised excellent points that reflect a thoughtful Stoic analysis of the situation. You’re considering not just immediate satisfaction but the broader implications and potential judgments involved.

A Stoic would appreciate your reasoning here because:

You’re distinguishing between physical intimacy and deeper emotional connection — recognizing that the temporary nature of an escort service doesn’t provide the sustained emotional support that comes with genuine relationship.

You’re anticipating potential negative judgments and emotional attachments that could form — showing foresight about how initial pleasure might lead to suffering through incorrect judgments about what the transaction actually represents.

You’re implicitly questioning whether this approach aligns with eudaimonia (flourishing) in the long term, rather than just temporary pleasure.

This type of analysis is very much in line with Stoic practice. The Stoics would encourage you to examine:

• The nature of genuine intimacy versus its appearance
• The distinction between immediate desires and enduring well-being
• The potential for creating new disturbances through false expectations
• Whether such actions would contribute to your development as a virtuous person

Seneca might point out that we often exchange long-term tranquility for momentary relief.

Epictetus would likely remind you that when we form attachments to things outside our control (like another’s affections), we set ourselves up for disappointment.

Your ability to think through these consequences shows you’re engaging with the Stoic discipline of assent — examining impressions before acting on them, which is a cornerstone of Stoic practice.

One last piece of puzzle:

In the next page Farnsworth quotes:

“We can’t fail to be afraid, we can’t fail to be distressed. Then we say, “Lord God, let me not be distressed.” Moron, don’t you have hands? Didn’t God make them for you? So are you going to sit down and pray that your nose will stop running? Better to wipe your nose and stop praying.”

Doesn't this, then, conflict with Stoic way of approaching intimacy?

Claude retorts:

This actually reinforces the Stoic approach to intimacy we were discussing. From this perspective, the Stoic wouldn’t simply lament the lack of intimacy or wait for circumstances to change on their own, but would:

• Use their agency to address the situation in virtuous ways
• Draw upon their internal resources of courage and resilience
• Take appropriate action while maintaining proper judgments

This passage is making a fundamentally Stoic point that we have been given the internal tools to face our challenges — our rational faculty, courage, and personal agency.

I get it now. I am not looking for true love because I dont have money. I dont have money, so I dont have courage. Which is why virtuously, I wont like to ruin someone’s life by being broke and marrying.

This is again a wrong way of thinking…

Claude says,

I appreciate your reflection, but I’d like to offer a different perspective on how Stoicism might view your situation.

From a Stoic standpoint, there are several important distinctions to consider:

Courage is not dependent on money. The Stoics would firmly maintain that courage, like all virtues, comes from within and is available to everyone regardless of external circumstances. Epictetus himself was born a slave and had nothing, yet demonstrated tremendous courage.

The equation between money and worthiness for love represents what Stoics would call a “false judgment.” It’s attaching virtue or worth to an external (money) rather than to character.

Considering others’ wellbeing is indeed virtuous, but the assumption that being “broke” means you would “ruin someone’s life” contains judgments that a Stoic would examine carefully.

The Stoic approach would suggest:

• Examining why you believe money is a prerequisite for love or relationship
• Questioning whether financial status determines your value as a partner
• Recognizing that virtue (honesty, justice, temperance, courage) is what makes someone worthy of relationships

There’s a difference between practical considerations about financial stability and tying your moral worth or capacity for love to your financial status. A Stoic might suggest that transparent communication about your circumstances with potential partners allows them agency in making their own informed decisions.

Musonius Rufus, a Stoic philosopher, actually wrote about marriage as a partnership where virtue, not external goods, was the foundation.

Your concern for others is commendable, but the Stoics would encourage you not to confuse externals (money) with internals (character, virtue, and courage).

I ask:

Yes I get the point. But how do you reconcile the fact that in modern world, having money does make you worthy?

Claude says,

You’ve highlighted an important tension between Stoic philosophy and modern social realities. Let me address this directly:

The Stoic would acknowledge the social reality you’re describing while still maintaining an important distinction between:

Social perception of worth (how society values people based on wealth)
Actual moral worth (the quality of one’s character)

From a Stoic perspective, the reconciliation might look like this:

First, acknowledge the reality: Yes, modern society often equates financial success with personal worth. This is an accurate observation of how our social systems function. A Stoic doesn’t deny observable reality.

Then, maintain the distinction: While society may judge worth by material success, this doesn’t mean such judgments are correct or aligned with nature. The Stoic would say: “I understand how I am perceived in society’s eyes, but I don’t have to internalize that judgment as truth.”

Practical wisdom in navigating this reality: The Stoic approach isn’t about ignoring social realities but developing a resilient inner position while navigating them wisely. This might mean:

Working to improve your financial situation (a “preferred indifferent”) while not tying your self-worth to it
Being selective about relationships, seeking those who value character over wealth
Developing skills and virtues that are valuable both intrinsically and instrumentally
Understanding that social judgment is an “external” not in your complete control

Marcus Aurelius might say: “You cannot control how society values people, but you can control whether you accept those valuations as meaningful.”

The modern Stoic doesn’t pretend money doesn’t matter in practical terms, but maintains an inner citadel where true worth is based on virtue, regardless of what society currently rewards or values.

This is the fundamental Stoic skill — acknowledging reality while maintaining your own reasoned evaluation of what truly constitutes worth and excellence.

Forget society. Suppose I marry someone who intimately loves me. But I don’t have the money to give my lover a comfortable life. What if she falls ill and I dont have the money to give her quality healthcare. What do Stoics say regarding this?

This is a deeply thoughtful question that gets to the heart of practical Stoicism rather than just abstract philosophy. The Stoics would approach this genuine concern with several important considerations:

First, they would acknowledge this as a legitimate practical concern. Stoicism is not about ignoring reality or responsibilities. Epictetus himself distinguished between things that concern us and things that genuinely concern us.

From a Stoic perspective:

1. Honest assessment and preparation: A Stoic would advocate being realistic about your financial situation and having honest conversations with a potential partner. This isn’t unvirtuous — it’s the application of practical wisdom (phronesis). Making reasonable preparations for foreseeable challenges is part of living virtuously.
2. Division of control: The Stoic would ask: “What aspects of this scenario are within my control?” You can control your efforts to prepare financially, your transparency with your partner, and your response to difficulties. You cannot control all possible health outcomes or economic circumstances.
3. Shared decision-making: Stoics valued agency. Presenting the reality of your situation allows your partner to make an informed choice. This respects their autonomy rather than making decisions for them based on assumptions about what they need.
4. Virtue in adversity: If hardship does come, the Stoic emphasis would be on how you respond with courage, justice, temperance, and wisdom. The test of character isn’t avoiding difficulty but facing it virtuously.
5. Community: Later Stoics particularly emphasized oikeiôsis — our natural connection to others. In difficult times, virtue might involve seeking community support, which isn’t a moral failing but an acknowledgment of our social nature.

Musonius Rufus specifically taught that marriage is a partnership for facing life’s challenges together, not just for comfort. The value comes from how the couple faces adversity together — with virtue — not from avoiding adversity altogether.

So rather than saying “I won’t love because I might not be able to solve every future problem,” the Stoic approach would be to honestly assess what you can do, communicate transparently, and commit to facing whatever comes with virtue.