The tension beween caring and not caring about other people's opinions

The Stoics taught that our only true possession is our moral purpose. Everything else—reputation, approval, status—is simply on loan. To surrender our steadiness to the opinions of others is to hand over what should never be given away. But to disregard other people entirely would be careless, even unkind.

That tension—between caring and not caring—defines much of my professional life.

Detachment from outcomes, not from people

Public work invites scrutiny. Politics, ego, and competing agendas can easily distort intention. I’ve had occasions where others misread my motives or respond defensively to plain speech. When I take a position— sometimes gently, sometimes not— especially when speaking about an issue of fairness, access, or accountability, discomfort often follows. Even reasoned words can unsettle people who would rather preserve the familiar.

In those moments, I remind myself that Stoicism doesn’t require detachment from people, only from outcomes. I can’t control how truth is received; I can control whether I present it with precision and goodwill.

If someone is mistaken, instruct them kindly and show them their error. - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, 4.21

If you can’t, then accept it—the fault is theirs, not yours. - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, 4.3

I’ve had to practice those disciplines often.

Being consistent

When someone misrepresents my intentions, the impulse to defend myself rises quickly. But self-justification convinces no one; consistency does. Over time, steady conduct builds a quieter credibility than any rebuttal could.

To be Stoic isn’t to assume greater wisdom than those who disagree. It’s choosing to remember that every person acts from what they believe is right. Remembering this keeps me from contempt and preserves compassion, even for those who oppose me.

Still, compassion must not become simple compliance. And harmony can’t come at the cost of justice. When faced with a choice between comfort and conscience, a Stoic chooses conscience—calmly, not combatively, no matter how loud the argument might become.

In practice, that might mean saying: “I hear your perspective, but the data—and our values—point elsewhere.” Or, “I understand this may be uncomfortable. My intention isn’t to provoke, but to ensure fairness.”

Blending empathy with firmness

That blend of empathy and firmness is the essence of Stoic engagement for those of us working in public or political spaces. It isn’t about winning arguments or collecting allies. It’s about matching word and deed so completely that disagreement cannot unseat our balance.

Of course, I fall short. There are nights when criticism lands too hard and I lie awake replaying a meeting, wondering if I could have chosen a different phrase or waited a moment longer before responding. In those times, I recall Seneca’s reminder,

A good person dyes events with their own colour… they are not carried along by them. - Seneca, Moral Letters, 59.15

And then I ask myself: What colour did I bring to this? Did I act from irritation or from purpose? Was I trying to be right, or to do right?

That is my Stoic compass—not public opinion, but the examined conscience.

Disapproval is the cost of commitment

Disapproval, after all, is often the cost of commitment to a just response. The Stoic doesn’t presume to “know better,” only to discern carefully, act deliberately, and adjust when reason requires. That humility—the willingness to revise my own view— separates steadiness from stubbornness.

When doubt creeps in, I look for quiet indicators of alignment: Am I sleeping peacefully? Am I consistent across settings—equally kind to those with power and those without? Do my choices expand trust? Or do my actions constrict it?

If I can answer yes to the first two and no to the last, then I am where I should be.

The Stoic path isn’t indifference; it’s integrity. We care less about how we are perceived and more about how we persist— steady, rational, and humane, even when the room bristles with misunderstanding.

We can’t control whether others approve. We can only ensure that we’ve done our part to provide them with the right reasons to act, whatever they might choose.

Andi Sciacca serves as the Chief Academic Officer and as the Director of Accreditation & Assessment for the European Graduate School. She is also the Environmental Sustainability Program Coordinator for the FEED MKE Program for the City of Milwaukee.

---