5 ms·

> Is it not possible for the modern man to accept the drawbacks of modern life, including loneliness, just as stoically as the primitive man was accepting adver

> Is it not possible for the modern man to accept the drawbacks of modern life, including loneliness, just as stoically as the primitive man was accepting adversity and death? Primitive men weren't stoic. We attribute that quality to them because we now understand how common diseases work and why they were so prominent in that time. That understanding -part of the advantages of modern life- has forever changed our perspective on the subject. For primitive men, life was probably terrifying and a constant struggle. When someone in the tribe got sick, they didn't say "oh well, that's life! What can you do?". They'd attribute it to some supernatural force that was clearly angry at them for something they did. That's why they created various superstitions and rituals, as a way to combat the things they could not understand and control. That's not exactly being stoic. That being said, I do believe that some people are not equipped to deal with modern life, and that a larger degree of solitude is part of that life. I'm lucky in the sense that, for me, being alone does not have an emotional tax. I enjoy being alone as much as I enjoy being in good company (and because you cannot always count on the company to be good, i'd say I enjoy it even more). I'm not saying I like to be alone sometimes. I really enjoy being alone for extended periods of time and could imagine living the rest of my life alone to some degree (I do like the rhythm of modern cities). But I understand the frustration of those who cannot endure solitude or get a feeling of loneliness from it. I wouldn't say modern society sucks, though. It has a lot going for it, but it's obviously not perfect.

gaius 9y ago
For primitive men, life was probably terrifying and a constant struggle Yes, but the Stoics weren't "primitive" really. I may be getting the timeline mixed up slightly but they were part of a civilisation that invented steam engines but never bothered to develop them because they had slavery to provide manual labour! They are far closer to us than they were to cavemen in every meaningful way. Update: Epictetus died in 135 AD. Vitruvius died in 15 AD and was writing about steam engines... So the Stoics were a century into what could have been the Age of Steam, which would be 1870 in our timeline!
- positr0n 9y ago
  Off topic, but this stack exchange post convinced me that the Roman's didn't have the metallurgical skills to truly enter the age of steam[0]. They didn't have the ability to mine enough iron nor the ability to cast (and definitely not mill) it precisely enough for proper steam engine parts. [0]: https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/98363/26525 https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/98363/26525
- wklauss 9y ago
  > Yes, but the Stoics weren't "primitive" really They weren't that many either. Most of their greek / roman peers were still in the dark about common ailments and diseases, and resorted to all kinds of superstitions to treat them and fight them. What I'm getting at is that this view of the primitive man as a stoic figure in tune with nature is severely distorted by our current worldview and knowledge. There was nothing "stoic" about the majority of them lived their lives. More broadly, I'm trying to make the point that Kaczynski was a nutcase with a severe misconception of the human condition.
77pt77 9y ago
> They'd attribute it to some supernatural force that was clearly angry at them for something they did. Or the neighbouring tribe hexing them. Stuff like this still goes on today unchanged in Papua New Guinea.

gaius 9y ago

For primitive men, life was probably terrifying and a constant struggle Yes, but the Stoics weren't "primitive" really. I may be getting the timeline mixed up slightly but they were part of a civilisation that invented steam engines but never bothered to develop them because they had slavery to provide manual labour! They are far closer to us than they were to cavemen in every meaningful way. Update: Epictetus died in 135 AD. Vitruvius died in 15 AD and was writing about steam engines... So the Stoics were a century into what could have been the Age of Steam, which would be 1870 in our timeline!

positr0n 9y ago
Off topic, but this stack exchange post convinced me that the Roman's didn't have the metallurgical skills to truly enter the age of steam[0]. They didn't have the ability to mine enough iron nor the ability to cast (and definitely not mill) it precisely enough for proper steam engine parts. [0]: https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/98363/26525 https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/98363/26525
wklauss 9y ago
> Yes, but the Stoics weren't "primitive" really They weren't that many either. Most of their greek / roman peers were still in the dark about common ailments and diseases, and resorted to all kinds of superstitions to treat them and fight them. What I'm getting at is that this view of the primitive man as a stoic figure in tune with nature is severely distorted by our current worldview and knowledge. There was nothing "stoic" about the majority of them lived their lives. More broadly, I'm trying to make the point that Kaczynski was a nutcase with a severe misconception of the human condition.

77pt77 9y ago

> They'd attribute it to some supernatural force that was clearly angry at them for something they did. Or the neighbouring tribe hexing them. Stuff like this still goes on today unchanged in Papua New Guinea.