Massimo Piglucci recently published an article titled “What does it mean to “practice” Stoicism?” with a subheading of “There seems to be some confusion about what Stoic philosophy really consists of.” He concludes the article with a list of just five practices he thinks are really necessary for practicing Stoicism.

Of course, Piglucci would tell you that he’s not the Stoic Pope and that there are people who call themselves Stoics whose ideas differ from his (the Traditional Stoics being an obvious example, but he would also point to “Stoics” that he calls “$toics” and “Broics” whose Stoicism also differs). However, his handling of the topic is informative and likely representative of how many Stoics think about their practice.

Although Piglucci doesn’t mention it in his article, his latest book, Beyond Stoicism, is about the other ancient Greek philosophies and the merits of their philosophical practices. (See reviews of the book from Ataraxia or Bust! and The Gentle Law). If these other philosophies contain “new ideas for practicing Stoics” then perhaps Stoicism and those philosophies have more in common than one might think.

This article looks at the five practices Piglucci counts as essential to Stoic practice and asks the question: Are these really that much different from the practices of other Greek philosophies?” The conclusion is that while there are differences, they’re not big. I’ll start with the ones that least distinguish Stoicism from other philosophies and end with the ones for which Stoicism has greater differences.

1. Ask yourself whether you are applying the best judgment to the situation at hand, based on the best reasoning and evidence available to you.

There’s nothing unique to Stoicism here. While what defines “best judgment,” “best reasoning,” and perhaps even “evidence” might have some Stoic twists to it. Put as generally as this, all it means is to think and live rationally.

2. Ask yourself whether you are truly following the fundamental rule: are you focusing on what is up to you, i.e., on your judgments, decisions to act or not to act, and chosen values? Or are you pining for externals that are not up to you, like health, wealth, reputation, and so forth?

While due to the influence of Epictetus, who puts a great deal of emphasis on this rule, the rule is strongly associated with Stoicism, the rule itself happens to be common property among the Greek philosophies and can be found in their ancient texts. Besides, one need not be a philosopher to have noticed the rule. Indeed, when put as a general statement, it seems everyone agrees with it. It’s just that in some situations, people are prone to overlook the rule. It’s true, however, that the Stoics have a unique interpretation of the rule, so in a sense that makes it uniquely Stoic. But just barely.

3. Ask yourself whether you are performing the roles that Fate assigned to you, that of a father or mother, son or daughter, friend, colleague, and so on, to the best of your abilities. If not, try to do it better.

The Stoics put more emphasis on performing the roles that fate has assigned - they’re not quite the ones to chuck the rat race and go off to Epicurus’ Garden to live the simple life - but even in that, the Epicureans seldom abandoned their social roles. They aren’t home-leaving Buddhist monks renouncing the world. What this Stoic practice primarily does is to differentiate Stoics from Cynics, as it was pretty much only the Cynics who disregarded their social roles.

4. Ask yourself whether what you are contemplating is in line with the cardinal virtues of wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance. If not, don’t do it.

This hardly differs from what Epicurus advised Epicureans to do. In Principal Doctrine #5, he says, “It is not possible to live pleasantly without living prudently and honorably and justly.” Or what Sextus Empiricus said about the Pyrrhonist way of living: that it allowed one to live rightly with respect to virtue. (Outlines of Pyrrhonism I.17)

5. Ask yourself whether you are behaving truly as a cosmopolitan, a member of the universal human family, who thinks that every human being—regardless of nationality, ethnicity, creed, gender, or whatever—is to be treated with dignity and respect, and who cares about being a good steward of the environment and biosphere on which all life, including our own, depends.

On this criterion, it would seem that the ancient Epicureans were more cosmopolitan than the Stoics, allowing women and slaves to be equal participants. While the Pyrrhonists made no claims about cosmopolitanism one way or the other, they did point out that there was no basis for concluding any inherent superiority of one group of people over another. The Cynics, of course, adopted cosmopolitanism before Stoicism was invented. It would seem that here Stoicism is mostly differentiating itself from the elitism of Aristotelianism and Platonism.

The Stoic philosopher Seneca gives an interesting bit of insight into why these five “Stoic” practices have so little in them that is unique to Stoicism. In his letter #8 to Lucillus, instead of his usual criticism of Epicureanism, Seneca says:

It is likely that you will ask me why I quote so many of Epicurus’ noble words instead of words taken from our own school. But is there any reason why you should regard them as sayings of Epicurus and not common property?

The overall point Seneca makes by this is that he thinks what is good in Epicureanism is not unique, and what is unique in it is not good.

This phenomenon may account for why people find so much good in Stoicism, and, correspondingly, point to where Stoicism has likely succumbed to overreach - perhaps the ultimate new idea for practicing Stoics.