4 ms·
It would be good for both of us, along with the other HN readers, if you provided what you thought the thesis was. I'm happy to be corrected, but if all you pr
by DanielBMarkham 8y ago
It would be good for both of us, along with the other HN readers, if you provided what you thought the thesis was.
I'm happy to be corrected, but if all you provide is disagreement, it doesn't do anybody any good.
- paol 8y agoIn fact it doesn't have a thesis, as far as the question "why does stoicism appeal to modern rich and powerful". The partial quote you posted is part of a musing around that topic, but it only takes reading that paragraph in full to see what you call its thesis is nothing of the sort. Here it is for the lazy: "Thus, turning to the questions that Nellie asked me for her article, when I see a fad for stoicism among today’s rising rich, I see a good side and a bad side. The good side is that stoicism, sharing a lot with Buddhism, teaches that the only real treasures are inner treasures–virtue, self-mastery, courage, charity–and that all things in existence are part of one good, divine, and sacred whole, a stance which can combat selfishness and intolerance by encouraging self-discipline and teaching us to love and value every stranger as much as we love our families and ourselves. But on the negative side, stoicism’s Providential claim that everything in the universe is already perfect and that things which seem bad or unjust are secretly good underneath (a claim Christianity borrowed from Stoicism) can be used to justify the idea that the rich and powerful are meant to be rich and powerful, that the poor and downtrodden are meant to be poor and downtrodden, and that even the worst actions are actually good in an ineffable and eternal way. Such claims can be used to justify complacency, social callousness, and even exploitative or destructive behavior."