7 ms·

I think modern society suffers from a lack of life philosophy. I don't think it gets much better than ancient greek philosophy. There are no new fundamental ins

I think modern society suffers from a lack of life philosophy. I don't think it gets much better than ancient greek philosophy. There are no new fundamental insights into the human condition in 3000 years. Epictetus talks a lot about tranquility, which is neither happiness or sadness, but staying centered. It doesn't matter how you feel, feelings are just an appearance in consciousness. What matters is that you move forward with your purpose, something you define outside of the day to day grind. Happiness and sadness are fleeting for most people. If you chase happiness to the exclusion of boredom and fulfilling a greater purpose there will be a reciprocal crash where there can be no happiness. This is why Epictetus cautioned us to always view happiness with just as much skepticism as sadness. Not to become boorish, but to maintain a state of being that you can rely on every day. To that point, intellectuals have always had this struggle. When you value mastery over purpose and you don't find a point of tranquility in your life there will always be a struggle. Intellectuals and smart people often spend a lot of time worrying on externalities they can't control. It is the curse of high awareness / intellectual capability. There is only so much you can possibly change and influence. This is why being a billionaire doesn't drastically alter your happiness. Even with billions of dollars you are still stuck in a mortal shell with the same brains and bodies as the rest of us. Also, MENSA is a self selected group and I have never held a high opinion of it.

Florin_Andrei 8y ago
> There are no new fundamental insights into the human condition in 3000 years. Human nature has not changed much in the meanwhile, if at all.
OnACoffeeBreak 8y ago
My cursory understanding of the stoics is that they are focused on excellence in virtue (wisdom, morality, courage, and moderation) and mastering the self. What I don't understand is whether these constitute the purpose. In other words, is life purpose according to Epictetus mastering virtue or is mastering virtue a way to achieve a purpose that one defines for oneself? Any pointers?
- platistocrates 8y ago
  As far as I can tell, stoics believe that being an excellent man (or woman) is the purpose of a man (or woman). Just as being an excellent horse is the purpose of a horse, or being an excellent chair is the purpose of being a chair.
  - bitexploder 8y ago
    Yes! But they also viewed society and connection to others as vital. So many people think Stoicism is a dour internally focused philosophy, and that is very nearly the opposite of truth. Being excellent meant being as good at your profession as you could be. Being the best father, etc.
fsloth 8y ago
I would hold compassion in higher esteem than stoic virtue. Remember that society where stoics came from considered enslavement as good and natural and feeding people to animals as good sport. That's not to say Epictetus does not have lots of worthwhile things to say, but that there are other facets to living a good life in addition to what was stoics prescribed.
- Balgair 8y ago
  Oh man, Emperor Commodus[0] is a perfect example of this. Commodus was the first emperor to be 'born in the purple'. His father was Emperor Marcus Aurelius. Yes THAT Marcus Aurelius, the stoic of all stoics. Commodus was likely insane and participated in daily gladiatorial combat against people and animals already behanded or hamstrung before the fight (so as to not actual pose a threat to the emperor), slaughtering hundreds. He was drowned in the bath by his wrestling partner. His death kicked off the year of the five emperors and civil war in the empire. So, even when the prime example of stoic philosophy, Marcus Aurelius, is given the sole reigns of power to the prime example of an empire at it's height, Rome in the Nerva–Antonines, it falls apart at the hands of familial duty/love. One thing to remember about Romans is that there is not 'thesis' to them. They did whatever they needed to do at the time. For example: look at the Roman Honor of the Republic days. It was fierce, passionate, and swift. Any slight was dealt with in total violence and societal honor was worth much more than your life. Compare that to the stoics, where nothing could 'slight' a person, only their internal life was important, and society was to be nearly forgotten. The Romans were, if anything, adaptable to the extreme, which is why they lasted nearly 2000 years. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodus
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- JackFr 8y ago
  > I would hold compassion in higher esteem than stoic virtue. I do too, but "compassion > stoicism" is not something science can prove. That's why I find articles like this one a little silly.
- 8y ago
platistocrates 8y ago
Long time lurker here. Created an account just to say that I agree with this comment.
sametmax 8y ago
> I think modern society suffers from a lack of life philosophy No, we never had that many people reading philosophy, trying to practice some kind of vision or another, asking questions and the like. I think the current tendancy is a symptom of people being freer to ask themself questions and do something else than survive. So we hear about it more. Anybody looking at the astonishing phenomenom called life will be stunned and desoriented. It's part of the deal. And with internet, we can now not only express that in mass, but we can share with each others the result of our soul searching. I believe the current "crisis" is actually good news. People feel lost, not because they were not before, but because for once, they have the opportunity to look around. That doesn't make it less painful though, and of course, anybody in that state pays for it. Growing as a specie has a price.
- jumpman500 8y ago
  > I think modern society suffers from a lack of life philosophy To me life philosophy is just another way of saying religion. And people in the west I think are slowly but surely losing their religion. Religions used to give people purpose, now the silent agnostics and atheists need to figure out how to have purpose in their lives. I definitely agree with everything else you're saying though. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1690/religion.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1690/religion.aspx
  - sametmax 8y ago
    It's hard to pinpoint a definition for religion. Does that imply some kind of practice ? Does that imply veneration ? Does that imply you hold something sacred ? Does that imply you have dogmatic principles ? Does that imply you have a mythology ? Does it mean you need a crowd ? Do you have an external reference driving your conduct, your view of the world, your morality ? And most importantly, should they all resolve around the same source ? Having a life phylosophy doesn't seem to be attached to most of those, and doesn't limit itself to one source. And a lot of those don't seem to necessarly imply a life philosophy. Besides, there is a huge difference between religion as it's designed, and religion as it's lived. Not to mention people of the same religion disagree on the living AND on the design part. But I do agree with you on one point: religion used to answer to those pesky deep life questions for everybody. Now that our source of points of view is much broader, we do miss the easy sense of purpose that was provided by many religions.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
I don't think it is a lack of philosophy so much as it is a crisis in the currently accepted philosophy of society. Basically, people are starting to realize that empiricism is incomplete, but society as a whole is so married to it that we suffer cognitive dissonance about this realization. One part of us wants to double down and insist that it is reality, rather than our model of it, that is wrong, while the other grasps desperately for a better model.
rubicon33 8y ago
> "It doesn't matter how you feel, feelings are just an appearance in consciousness" I wish that were actually true. It is however, objectively, quite false. You cannot simply will yourself out of a lack of motivation, or depression. Sure, you can to SOME degree, but your feeling of motivation is not trivial. It dramatically impacts how you function, down to the level in which your brain is engaged.
- sametmax 8y ago
  Maybe you can, maybe we just don't know how. Several religions include "mastery of one self" at the top of their list for hapiness. Whether it is possible and how is another question. Meditation, for example, is advertised as having exactly that purpose.
- bitexploder 8y ago
  It isn’t about will power. Will power can and will fail you. This is not a proposed solution to depression. Though, you will find, these same ideas I sketched from Stoicism are at the center of CBT, which is one of the few modern therapies that helps improve depression. This is more about having a framework for coping with negative emotions and positive emotions. I understand the biological issues with depression, this is just dealing with life from a relatively well adjusted starting point. If you are clinically depressed, life philosophy is important for maintenance and staying out of the hole (IMO). You certainly can’t get out if you are caught in a cycle of self defeat and the brains chemicals are out of whack. There is no universal advice that will work for everyone. But Stoicism is a powerful tool that has helped people endure unimaginable circumstances. (Stockdsle, Vietnam POW, concentration camp survivors, etc). Final thought, depression is about recognizing the thought patterns of depression. Having awareness of thought patterns is a key part of how psychology treats modern depression.
stcredzero 8y ago
Also, MENSA is a self selected group and I have never held a high opinion of it. I recall a comedic/editorial column in the old Omni magazine about MENSA. (I think it was the early 80's) The author knew he couldn't qualify for MENSA membership, so he got together with a friend, then he phoned the organization's office and asked if he and his friend, with their IQ scores added together, could qualify for a joint membership. The secretary put down her phone and went to ask. At this, the writer hung up. He then spent the rest of the article describing how he was going to establish the DENSA organization, which only would exist to oppose the MENSA organization, which he maintained had no point for existing. (Insert Dr. Evil meme here.)
- squish78 8y ago
  I always imagined that MENSA was the final test of intelligence. You scored high enough on the IQ test, but if you pay a self-congratulation fee to get your name printed in a book, you're still a rube
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    There was a psych experiment Lisa performed on Bart in The Simpsons. I think she electrified a candybar then proceeded to count the number of times Bart would shock himself trying to grab it. In other words, "Forrest Gump."
meroes 8y ago
To my eyes the main difference between today and ancient societies is lack of central narratives. Greek philosophy was hung up on appeals to nature, souls, and the greats unequivocally believed in a creator god of some kind (not the Pantheon). Today philosophy is much more detached from these ideas that were once central. Today a rational explanation of reality leaves little necessity for invoking God. Greeks could take solace in the unexplainable by chalking it up to a creator's will. We don't have that luxury anymore. Science has been so powerful in explaining reality that the natural instinct is no longer to invoke theistic reasonings. We take the wait and see approach. Well wait and see is antithetical to narrative building. Yet at this point there are no other tenable stances to take. Agnosticism is the only justifiable stance to take, but it is a very unfulfilling one for many people. There are smaller narratives around today such as humanism (and capitalism?), but they are not all encompassing. Would love to hear others' thoughts about the (in my opinion) unqiue philosophical setting three centuries of deferring to science has left us.
- bitexploder 8y ago
  I don’t see that much has changed. Life events unfold around us largely out of our control. We have a few scraps of knowledge and can frame our place differently, but nothing fundamental about human existence has changed. We live a bit longer. We have some cool gadgets. But we still die. We have not spread beyond earth. People still murder and kill and conquer and the only way to save ourselves is through ourselves. Call it a creator. Call it life. Most of it, we have no control over, just like the ancient Greeks. Until we radically alter the human condition, not much changes.
- danmaz74 8y ago
  For a time, science had a very strong finalistic narrative too - that science itself would remove all misery from the world. The strength of this narrative is much diminished today, even if it's not dead - it's often visible on HN, especially when commenting on themes like climate change. Personally, I envy those who still believe in that vision.
wizardforhire 8y ago
If anyone is interested in learning what the greek philosophy of life was all about, I don’t think gets more entertaining then listening to Rufus Fears lecture on it. The message is definitely buried but oh what gems when he goes off on a tangent. https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/famous-greeks.html https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/famous-greeks.html
tim333 8y ago
>There are no new fundamental insights into the human condition in 3000 years. I'd say the discovery of evolution along with the big bang and much of the rest of science are some fundamental insights. They have the effect of making some of the prior religious stories seem less plausible than previously. I think we're still working on making sense of that.

Florin_Andrei 8y ago

> There are no new fundamental insights into the human condition in 3000 years. Human nature has not changed much in the meanwhile, if at all.

OnACoffeeBreak 8y ago

My cursory understanding of the stoics is that they are focused on excellence in virtue (wisdom, morality, courage, and moderation) and mastering the self. What I don't understand is whether these constitute the purpose. In other words, is life purpose according to Epictetus mastering virtue or is mastering virtue a way to achieve a purpose that one defines for oneself? Any pointers?

platistocrates 8y ago
As far as I can tell, stoics believe that being an excellent man (or woman) is the purpose of a man (or woman). Just as being an excellent horse is the purpose of a horse, or being an excellent chair is the purpose of being a chair.
- bitexploder 8y ago
  Yes! But they also viewed society and connection to others as vital. So many people think Stoicism is a dour internally focused philosophy, and that is very nearly the opposite of truth. Being excellent meant being as good at your profession as you could be. Being the best father, etc.

fsloth 8y ago

I would hold compassion in higher esteem than stoic virtue. Remember that society where stoics came from considered enslavement as good and natural and feeding people to animals as good sport. That's not to say Epictetus does not have lots of worthwhile things to say, but that there are other facets to living a good life in addition to what was stoics prescribed.

Balgair 8y ago
Oh man, Emperor Commodus[0] is a perfect example of this. Commodus was the first emperor to be 'born in the purple'. His father was Emperor Marcus Aurelius. Yes THAT Marcus Aurelius, the stoic of all stoics. Commodus was likely insane and participated in daily gladiatorial combat against people and animals already behanded or hamstrung before the fight (so as to not actual pose a threat to the emperor), slaughtering hundreds. He was drowned in the bath by his wrestling partner. His death kicked off the year of the five emperors and civil war in the empire. So, even when the prime example of stoic philosophy, Marcus Aurelius, is given the sole reigns of power to the prime example of an empire at it's height, Rome in the Nerva–Antonines, it falls apart at the hands of familial duty/love. One thing to remember about Romans is that there is not 'thesis' to them. They did whatever they needed to do at the time. For example: look at the Roman Honor of the Republic days. It was fierce, passionate, and swift. Any slight was dealt with in total violence and societal honor was worth much more than your life. Compare that to the stoics, where nothing could 'slight' a person, only their internal life was important, and society was to be nearly forgotten. The Romans were, if anything, adaptable to the extreme, which is why they lasted nearly 2000 years. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodus
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
JackFr 8y ago
> I would hold compassion in higher esteem than stoic virtue. I do too, but "compassion > stoicism" is not something science can prove. That's why I find articles like this one a little silly.
8y ago

platistocrates 8y ago

Long time lurker here. Created an account just to say that I agree with this comment.

sametmax 8y ago

> I think modern society suffers from a lack of life philosophy No, we never had that many people reading philosophy, trying to practice some kind of vision or another, asking questions and the like. I think the current tendancy is a symptom of people being freer to ask themself questions and do something else than survive. So we hear about it more. Anybody looking at the astonishing phenomenom called life will be stunned and desoriented. It's part of the deal. And with internet, we can now not only express that in mass, but we can share with each others the result of our soul searching. I believe the current "crisis" is actually good news. People feel lost, not because they were not before, but because for once, they have the opportunity to look around. That doesn't make it less painful though, and of course, anybody in that state pays for it. Growing as a specie has a price.

jumpman500 8y ago
> I think modern society suffers from a lack of life philosophy To me life philosophy is just another way of saying religion. And people in the west I think are slowly but surely losing their religion. Religions used to give people purpose, now the silent agnostics and atheists need to figure out how to have purpose in their lives. I definitely agree with everything else you're saying though. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1690/religion.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1690/religion.aspx
- sametmax 8y ago
  It's hard to pinpoint a definition for religion. Does that imply some kind of practice ? Does that imply veneration ? Does that imply you hold something sacred ? Does that imply you have dogmatic principles ? Does that imply you have a mythology ? Does it mean you need a crowd ? Do you have an external reference driving your conduct, your view of the world, your morality ? And most importantly, should they all resolve around the same source ? Having a life phylosophy doesn't seem to be attached to most of those, and doesn't limit itself to one source. And a lot of those don't seem to necessarly imply a life philosophy. Besides, there is a huge difference between religion as it's designed, and religion as it's lived. Not to mention people of the same religion disagree on the living AND on the design part. But I do agree with you on one point: religion used to answer to those pesky deep life questions for everybody. Now that our source of points of view is much broader, we do miss the easy sense of purpose that was provided by many religions.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago

I don't think it is a lack of philosophy so much as it is a crisis in the currently accepted philosophy of society. Basically, people are starting to realize that empiricism is incomplete, but society as a whole is so married to it that we suffer cognitive dissonance about this realization. One part of us wants to double down and insist that it is reality, rather than our model of it, that is wrong, while the other grasps desperately for a better model.

rubicon33 8y ago

> "It doesn't matter how you feel, feelings are just an appearance in consciousness" I wish that were actually true. It is however, objectively, quite false. You cannot simply will yourself out of a lack of motivation, or depression. Sure, you can to SOME degree, but your feeling of motivation is not trivial. It dramatically impacts how you function, down to the level in which your brain is engaged.

sametmax 8y ago
Maybe you can, maybe we just don't know how. Several religions include "mastery of one self" at the top of their list for hapiness. Whether it is possible and how is another question. Meditation, for example, is advertised as having exactly that purpose.
bitexploder 8y ago
It isn’t about will power. Will power can and will fail you. This is not a proposed solution to depression. Though, you will find, these same ideas I sketched from Stoicism are at the center of CBT, which is one of the few modern therapies that helps improve depression. This is more about having a framework for coping with negative emotions and positive emotions. I understand the biological issues with depression, this is just dealing with life from a relatively well adjusted starting point. If you are clinically depressed, life philosophy is important for maintenance and staying out of the hole (IMO). You certainly can’t get out if you are caught in a cycle of self defeat and the brains chemicals are out of whack. There is no universal advice that will work for everyone. But Stoicism is a powerful tool that has helped people endure unimaginable circumstances. (Stockdsle, Vietnam POW, concentration camp survivors, etc). Final thought, depression is about recognizing the thought patterns of depression. Having awareness of thought patterns is a key part of how psychology treats modern depression.

stcredzero 8y ago

Also, MENSA is a self selected group and I have never held a high opinion of it. I recall a comedic/editorial column in the old Omni magazine about MENSA. (I think it was the early 80's) The author knew he couldn't qualify for MENSA membership, so he got together with a friend, then he phoned the organization's office and asked if he and his friend, with their IQ scores added together, could qualify for a joint membership. The secretary put down her phone and went to ask. At this, the writer hung up. He then spent the rest of the article describing how he was going to establish the DENSA organization, which only would exist to oppose the MENSA organization, which he maintained had no point for existing. (Insert Dr. Evil meme here.)

squish78 8y ago
I always imagined that MENSA was the final test of intelligence. You scored high enough on the IQ test, but if you pay a self-congratulation fee to get your name printed in a book, you're still a rube
- stcredzero 8y ago
  There was a psych experiment Lisa performed on Bart in The Simpsons. I think she electrified a candybar then proceeded to count the number of times Bart would shock himself trying to grab it. In other words, "Forrest Gump."

meroes 8y ago

To my eyes the main difference between today and ancient societies is lack of central narratives. Greek philosophy was hung up on appeals to nature, souls, and the greats unequivocally believed in a creator god of some kind (not the Pantheon). Today philosophy is much more detached from these ideas that were once central. Today a rational explanation of reality leaves little necessity for invoking God. Greeks could take solace in the unexplainable by chalking it up to a creator's will. We don't have that luxury anymore. Science has been so powerful in explaining reality that the natural instinct is no longer to invoke theistic reasonings. We take the wait and see approach. Well wait and see is antithetical to narrative building. Yet at this point there are no other tenable stances to take. Agnosticism is the only justifiable stance to take, but it is a very unfulfilling one for many people. There are smaller narratives around today such as humanism (and capitalism?), but they are not all encompassing. Would love to hear others' thoughts about the (in my opinion) unqiue philosophical setting three centuries of deferring to science has left us.

bitexploder 8y ago
I don’t see that much has changed. Life events unfold around us largely out of our control. We have a few scraps of knowledge and can frame our place differently, but nothing fundamental about human existence has changed. We live a bit longer. We have some cool gadgets. But we still die. We have not spread beyond earth. People still murder and kill and conquer and the only way to save ourselves is through ourselves. Call it a creator. Call it life. Most of it, we have no control over, just like the ancient Greeks. Until we radically alter the human condition, not much changes.
danmaz74 8y ago
For a time, science had a very strong finalistic narrative too - that science itself would remove all misery from the world. The strength of this narrative is much diminished today, even if it's not dead - it's often visible on HN, especially when commenting on themes like climate change. Personally, I envy those who still believe in that vision.

wizardforhire 8y ago

If anyone is interested in learning what the greek philosophy of life was all about, I don’t think gets more entertaining then listening to Rufus Fears lecture on it. The message is definitely buried but oh what gems when he goes off on a tangent. https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/famous-greeks.html https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/famous-greeks.html

tim333 8y ago

>There are no new fundamental insights into the human condition in 3000 years. I'd say the discovery of evolution along with the big bang and much of the rest of science are some fundamental insights. They have the effect of making some of the prior religious stories seem less plausible than previously. I think we're still working on making sense of that.