Hermes, thanks for the good wishes concerning the new book!

Regarding “control”: that’s not actually the word that Epictetus uses, and it does lead to misconceptions. What he says is “up to us,” meaning that for some things the buck, so to speak, stops with us, we are ultimately causally responsible for them. So looking at your examples:

> Some of our most virtuous actions are on things over which we have little or no control. For example, voting. Or to give money to an NGO. Our control over the outcome of an election or on the well-being of people in another country is null <

In all those cases what is up to us is to (i) arrive at the correct judgment, that we do need to vote, give money, etc.; and (ii) actually take those actions. The *outcomes* of those things are not up to us. So your examples do not conflict with the Stoic model.

> To act depending on the amount of control we have on the outcome is ultimately selfish. It means we are doing things for ourselves, not for the good of others. <

Once framed the way I just did, I don’t see how this follows.

> the dichotomy of control is a false dichotomy. As you pointed out, there are many things over which we have partial control. In fact, we do not have complete control over absolutely anything. <

That’s why the word “control” is misleading. (It was introduced by modern writer William Irvine, it’s not in the texts.) “Partial” control, or influence, is always and exclusively the result of three things on our part: our judgments, our decisions to act or not to act, and the values that ground our decisions. Nothing else.

> To state, as Epictetus does, that we can have complete control over our minds reveals a lack of self-knowledge. <

He doesn’t state that. The Stoic were aware that some mental activity is not up to us. Seneca gives specific examples. What they are saying is that what we really are is defined by our conscious, deliberate decisions, the kinds of things that are up to us. In modern terms, the activity of the brain’s executive function.

> For example, there is something in my mind I call the DJ who is always playing a song. I have little or no control over which song is playing in my mind. <

Right, the Stoics have no problem with that. They would say, though, that it is up to you whether to sing that song out loud to others, because that’s the result of a deliberate decision on your part.

> I wouldn’t dare to accuse people with anxiety or depression of moral failure for failing to control their minds <

The Stoics are not into accusing anyone. Indeed, they stay away from the whole concept of moral failure. However, there is good empirical evidence from cognitive behavioral therapy that Stoic techniques are helpful to people who suffer from depression or anxiety.

> Sometimes, we need to take medication to cure our minds, just like we take it to cure our bodies. Then why do Stoics claim that we have “complete” control over our minds while we are unable to control our bodies? <

Again, it’s not about control. The Stoics explicitly say that our body is “not up to us,” meaning that we can make sound decisions about it (eat healthy, exercise, etc.) but our health largely depends on internal and external circumstances about which we don’t make decisions.

As for the mental, if medication helps to bring our minds back to a functional level, by all means. But then we still have to make decisions about what we value (or not), when to act (or not), and so forth. The Stoics are concerned with such decisions.

> Since you are an atheist and a skeptic, I assume that you are not a dualist, that you don’t believe in an immaterial soul that controls the mind. Therefore, what you are saying is that part of your mind controls another part of your mind <

The Stoics were not dualists either. They were thoroughgoing materialists. The executive function of your brain is in charge of rational decision making. That’s all and the Stoics are saying (they called that function prohairesis, and located in an organ they call the hegemonikon, but the terms are irrelevant, of course).

> Perhaps the good, virtuous thing is to try to integrate and unify our mind <

Yes, that’s the Stoic goal. And you do that by using your executive function to rewrite and redirect your internal monologue.