The reason potassium supplements are limited in pill form is because they will burn a hole in your gut. You can buy a humongous jar of potassium chloride powder and the recommended serving size can be much higher, mine is 365mg. The aforementioned Lite Salt really is the best idea though because it has the right balance of sodium and potassium to prevent high potassium syndromes if you have healthy kidneys.

Obviously you should talk to your doctor before any dietary change or supplement regime and your yearly physical should include a kidney screen like egfr, and your total potassium intake shouldn't exceed 4000mg or so (unless you have some unique scenario that a doctor has advised). This means that if you supplement potassium significantly, you have to have a tightly controlled diet since food have highly various amounts of potassium.

Personally I would be passing out if I didn't have my 2tsp of lite salt (which is 2800mg of potassium) per day. I'm on a highly restricted medically supervised diet though.

yes, and the stoics would say that you are morally required to take political action (if your intention is rational and pro-social), this is a core component of stoicism and what differentiates it from epicurianism (which is not the pure hedonism that many people think).

The stoics would say that you simply shouldn't have desire or attachment to the external result of your actions, rather than your intentions and actions themselves. They simply are not disturbed if their actions do not work out, instead they take fulfillment in being a person who pursues justice.

The layman often equates the meme comic with the dog in the room on fire saying "this is fine" with stoicism. If the dog were actually a stoic, he would be calmly but efficiently doing everything within his control to put out the fire.

wrt slavery specifically. In the Greco-Roman times slavery was thought of much differently than we do now. Many have wrote about this topic (mostly a lot of theologians and apologists) rationalizing slavery in the ancient times, but the truth is I just don't think we can simply relate to it. Obviously we've moved on and any rational person considers slavery horrible. But thinking about history begs us to question what do we think is OK nowadays, that future generations will think is horrible. I'm certain there is something.

Yes, a slave with a crippled leg, who's lessons were compiled into one of the most influential texts on ethics of all time, and who's legacy underpins the bulk of modern psychotherapy 2000 years later.

He lived a life in pursuit of virtue, with reason and pro-social action at its core. Does being enslaved or crippled have anything to do with cultivating either?

Most likely the stoics (the classical stoics) had a plurality of beliefs related to mind/body dualism -- some believed in a pneuma or soul, some did not. All believed that we -- whether mind or body, were part of an ordered universe, one giant machine of matter and logic, so even if body and mind were believed to be separate, they are still both part of logos.

Whether the mind exists out of the body's matter notwithstanding, Epictetus considers the body as external and not under our control, he says it right on page one of The Enchiridion actually. Despite your best intentions and efforts, you could be effected by cancer or be in an accident, for example. Neither situation is in your control, or prevents you from cultivating virtue, so to be emotionally disturbed by such events is irrational.

I think what the modern stoic must acknowledge, moreso than neurobiology, is that we now know that in some cases it may not be possible to control our own mind and we may lose our faculties of reason. Dementia being the most clear example but someone may fall victim to psychological disorders as well. This is tough to come to terms with and I personally am not sure I have a solution.

if you were given the choice of receiving ten million dollars or becoming a paraphalegic, I think it is obvious that you would prefer the ten million dollars, and rationally would do what is in your control to receive it. However, you must recognize that in the real sense, both outcomes are indifferent to your ability to cultivate virtue, and thus should not be approached with desire or aversion, because they are neither good nor bad.

It is only rational to desire true goods, and the only true good is virtue.

>But why do anything if your only goal is for things to happen as they will?

Acceptance wasn't the goal of Epictetus and the Stoics. Acceptance is a useful tool, but if used to it's own end, rather than a tool for pursuing virtue, it is more appropriate for a doormat than a philosopher.

The Stoics sought to live a eudaimonic life -- that is to say, a life worth living. Most of their philosophy is centered on what makes a good human -- one who lives in accordance with human nature, and they observed that the human was a rational animal who thrived on society. Thus the conclusion of stoicism, in order to live a life worth living, we must treasure reason and pro-social action.

To build this kind of character, and thus to live a good life, is independent of station in life, the whims of Fortuna, and in a word, anything external to the mind (even the body). One can be rational and pro-social if they are a slave with a broken leg, or if they are a Roman emperor.

This leads to the understanding that we should not be disturbed by acts of Fortuna, because they are external to our character and indifferent to the pursuit of virtue. In fact, any act of fortune must be seen only as an opportunity to practice virtue, and neither good nor bad in the real sense. This is not to say that one situation cannot be preferred over the other, but it cannot be rationally desired.