The Blog

Nobody enjoys getting something wrong, and most of us have developed, over the years, a fairly sophisticated set of responses to failure that are designed primarily to make the experience of it more bearable rather than more useful. We defend the decision that led to it, or we blame the circumstances that surrounded it, or we move past it as quickly as possible on the grounds that dwelling on it serves no one, and while all of these responses are understandable, none of them are particularly good at producing the one thing that failure is actually well positioned to offer, which is a clearer understanding of what went wrong and why.

The Stoics had a different approach, and it was neither the self flagellation that the word examination might suggest nor the breezy resilience that tends to get celebrated now. It was something quieter and more honest than either.

What the Stoics Actually Did With Failure

Seneca wrote about the practice of reviewing the day before sleep, going back over what had happened, what had been done well and what hadn’t, with the intention not of producing guilt but of producing understanding. He described it as a conversation with himself, conducted with the same honesty he’d want from a trusted friend, neither harsh enough to be cruel nor gentle enough to be useless.

Marcus Aurelius did something similar in his private writing, returning again and again to moments where his conduct hadn’t matched his intentions, examining the gap not as evidence of his inadequacy but as information about where the work still needed to be done. What’s striking about these passages, reading them now, is how free they are from both defensiveness and self pity, two responses to failure that are almost universal and almost equally unhelpful.

The Stoic examination of failure was always in service of something practical, the next decision, the next opportunity to do better, the clearer understanding of your own tendencies that makes future mistakes less likely. It wasn’t about punishment and it wasn’t about closure. It was about learning, in the most straightforward sense of that word.

The Two Ways of Getting It Wrong

Most responses to failure go wrong in one of two directions, and it’s worth recognising both because they can look quite different from the outside while producing equally unhelpful results.

The first is defensiveness, the quick construction of a narrative in which the failure wasn’t really a failure, or wasn’t really your fault, or was understandable given the circumstances, or would have been avoided if other people had done their part. This response protects the ego in the short term and forfeits the learning almost entirely, because a failure that has been successfully reframed as something other than a failure has nothing left to teach.

The second is excessive self criticism, the turning of a specific mistake into a general verdict on your character or your capability, the extraction of a broad conclusion from a narrow event. This response looks, from the outside, like taking responsibility, but it tends to produce paralysis rather than improvement, because a man who has decided that failure reveals something fundamental and damning about who he is will go to considerable lengths to avoid any situation where failure is possible, which is to say most situations worth attempting.

The examined failure sits between these two, treating the event as a specific thing that happened for specific reasons that can be understood and learned from, without either explaining it away or inflating it into something larger than it actually was.

What Honest Self Assessment Requires

The difficulty with examining your own failures honestly is that the examination is being conducted by the same mind that made the decisions that led to the failure, which means the investigation is not entirely neutral. We are all, to some degree, unreliable narrators of our own mistakes, and the Stoics were honest about this rather than pretending that the intention to be objective was the same as actually being objective.

What they recommended, in various forms, was a kind of structured honesty, asking specific questions rather than making general assessments, looking for the particular decision or assumption or habit that contributed to the outcome rather than reaching for a broader verdict. What did I actually do here, and why did I do it, and what would I do differently with what I know now, are more useful questions than the vaguer and more punishing versions that tend to arrive first.

Epictetus was particularly direct about the importance of separating what you could have controlled from what you couldn’t, not as a way of reducing your responsibility but as a way of focusing the examination on the parts that are actually useful to examine. Learning from the aspects of a failure that were genuinely within your control is productive. Tormenting yourself over the aspects that weren’t is simply suffering without purpose, and the Stoics had very little patience for suffering without purpose.

The Failure You Don’t Examine

There’s a cost to the failure that gets defended or buried or moved past too quickly, and it’s worth naming because it tends to be invisible at the time.

The unexamined failure doesn’t disappear. It tends to recur, in slightly different forms, because the conditions that produced it haven’t been understood well enough to be changed. The man who has successfully avoided thinking about why something went wrong will often find, with some frustration, that something remarkably similar goes wrong again, and the pattern continues until the examination happens or the opportunity for it closes.

This is not inevitable, and the Stoics weren’t suggesting that failure is always instructive or that every mistake contains a lesson worth extracting. Some things go wrong for reasons that couldn’t have been anticipated and couldn’t have been prevented, and spending significant time examining them is unlikely to produce much beyond the confirmation that the world is uncertain, which is true but not particularly actionable.

What is worth examining is the failure that came from something you did or didn’t do, something you assumed or missed or chose, because those are the failures that have something specific to tell you, and telling you is what they’re for.

What Comes After

The examined failure tends to produce something that the defended or buried failure doesn’t, which is a quieter relationship with the next attempt. A man who has looked honestly at what went wrong, understood it as well as he can, and made whatever adjustments it calls for, tends to approach the next thing with less of the unacknowledged anxiety that unexamined failures leave behind.

Not confidence exactly, because confidence without basis is just optimism with better posture, but something more grounded than that. The knowledge, built from honest experience rather than from reassurance, that he can look at what goes wrong clearly enough to learn from it and carry on, which turns out to be most of what’s needed.

Seneca wrote that a wise man makes no mistakes. Then he corrected himself. A wise man makes mistakes, but he learns from them. That, in the end, is a more useful kind of wisdom than the first version, and one that’s actually within reach.