9 ms·

Psychological techniques to practice Stoicism

179 points by hoanhan101 6y ago

NegativeLatency 6y ago
> Willpower is like muscle power: the more exercise, the stronger they are; the more will power we have, the more self-control and courage we have. IIRC: studies have not validated this
- itisit 6y ago
  Yes, a dated analogy: https://hbr.org/2016/11/have-we-been-thinking-about-willpower-the-wrong-way-for-30-years https://hbr.org/2016/11/have-we-been-thinking-about-willpowe...
  - phkahler 6y ago
    Ego depletion would kinda be the opposite anyway.
    - ReactiveJelly 6y ago
      Anecdotally, exercising my executive function and 'saving' it both don't work. I've always been mostly lazy except for my interest in computers, and it's dumb luck that I got a job where I get paid for the only thing I'm not lazy about. I think it's ADHD, but I'm not diagnosed. Whatever it is, it makes me believe that nobody understands willpower and it might not exist. If I could choose to be better, why haven't I already done it?
- dorkwood 6y ago
  In my experience willpower is less like a muscle and more like a habit. Right now I'm in the habit of working on side projects every day, so it's easy. Since habits come naturally, what once required willpower now requires no willpower at all. Surely there are studies that confirm habitual tasks are easier to perform than non-habitual ones?
  - andai 6y ago
    I've spent the last few years working on my willpower. No improvement. Recently I've been creating social pressure to keep habits (agree to do something every day) and the willpower required is 0 and the results are amazing. When I have someone expecting me to do something I just naturally put in a lot more effort.
- ximeng 6y ago
  Recent comment on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22920237 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22920237 "The effect likely isn't too big, or it would be harder to design experiments where it doesn't show up at all."
- artificialLimbs 6y ago
  I don't suspect that willpower will be something people can measure with any degree of usefulness. You can personally verify that it is like a muscle by attempting to enhance your own willpower. I'm not trying to sell you on anything, this is just what I've observed in myself.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
troughway 6y ago
>https://hoanhan101.github.io/about https://hoanhan101.github.io/about I want psychologists to write a solid book on this subject. So far majority of posts that I have read on this subject have been by software developers, which strikes me bizarre. You can leave your Zen and Art of Motorcycle Maintenance out of this. Software developers are not qualified to write about this. They are clueless dingbats and don't know it. How about some proper sources on the subject?
- downerending 6y ago
  > Zen and Art of Motorcycle Maintenance ?? OP doesn't mention this at all. Also, it's a great book--read it!
  - notokay 6y ago
    When I was a teenager, I bought my first motorcycle and this book. I was thinking that this book would contain a tech manual for repairing motorcycles in a special "zen-way". I was very angry when I finished reading it.
    - downerending 6y ago
      Ha ha. Sorry that happened to you. The intro does say: It should in no way be associated with that great body of factual information relating to orthodox Zen Buddhist practice. It's not very factual on motorcycles, either. On the other hand, I hope you enjoyed your motorcycle. Have you looked at the book again? One surprising thing for me is that as I've reread it over the years, it seems different each time.
- Trasmatta 6y ago
  CBT is based on stoicism, lots has been written about it from psychologists. It also has a lot in common with acceptance based therapy. EDIT: "inspired by" is probably more accurate to say than "based on".
- el_dev_hell 6y ago
  Sure. Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl. You can make a clear line from Stoic philosophy to his concepts as a psychiatrist.
Svip 6y ago
The problems with Cynicism, Scepticism, Epicureanism and Stoicism is that they don't really adhear to the notion of 'everything in moderation'. The logical extremes either can lead to some genuinely useless approaches to life. If one should never worry about things that they cannot possibly control, even if it directly affects one's life, because we are just going to cease to exist at some point anyway, how would one now whether or not they could alter it, if they never began worrying? This very idea lead to several prominent Stoics to commit suicide, because might as well hasten my eventual ceasing of being? Perhaps if they had concerned themselves with things that on the surface seemed outside of their reach, they might have realised that some things are approachable, even if the solution is not obvious. The idea that one should avoid worry about things outside one's control is not a bad suggestion in general, it just should not be taken as an extreme. I mean, there is probably a reason why philosophers went back to Aristotle and Plato after those other four Schools saw prominence. Jewish, Christian and Islamic philosophers weren't trying to make their religions compatible with Zeno's or Epicurus' teachings, but rather Plato's and later Aristotle's.
- Trasmatta 6y ago
  I think it's true that none of these philosophies will be a "one size fits all" type thing. Personally, worry and anxiety just makes me useless. When I'm drawn into worries and fears about external factors, it saps me entirely of the energy to deal with just about anything, which is why I find stoicism helpful. I'm sure there are other people who find the stress and anxiety about external factors as motivating and bearable, and would not find stoicism useful. ETA: I don't find everything in stoicism to be useful. I kind of use my own personal "buffet" style approach, where I pick and choose what pieces from different philosophies work best for me.
  - Svip 6y ago
    I should have mentioned, that later after they got tired with reading Plato and Aristotle again, Cynicism, Scepticism, Epicureanism and Stoicism all saw new light, but usually they were more combined into general useful advice on living a good life. Cynicism's rejection of social norms, when it re-appeared in the late 18th century, morphed into a disapproval of society in general, and the modern usage of 'cynic' was meant to be someone who rejected social structures, and thus someone's who is negative, rather than someone trying to live a virtuous life without being 'chained' by society.
a-saleh 6y ago
Just beware you actually practice stoicism, acceptance and the good stuff and not just dissociation ;-)
exit 6y ago
> A person’s virtue depends on their excellence as a human being, how well one performs the function for which humans were designed. humans weren't designed, they were selected for through a happenstantial process. random mutation is critical to this process, and so any one of us can be deeply at odds with whatever the majority are geared towards.
- ourmandave 6y ago
  That's why you have to design your environment instead. For example, this family-size package of Double Stuf Oreos was designed to be eaten, so I will stoically consume every last one of them.
- clairity 6y ago
  > “humans weren't designed, they were selected for...” unless i’m mistaking your intent, “evolved” might be the better phrasing if you’re objecting to the agency implied by “designed”, as “selected for” also implies similar (super-)agency.
  - exit 6y ago
    you're right that "selected for" also implies agency. if i wrote my comment a second time i'd replace that with "came about through". my main intention though is to point out that being the product of an evolutionary process we can't find definitive purpose in our origins.
kashyapc 6y ago
For those who wish to truly deep-dive, I strongly suggest to skip the "meta books" on Stoicism, and go straight to the original works. There's the Big Three—Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius. Be prepared to invest at least ten months (the longer, the better) of active study to get a decent grounding. From my experience of reading multiple translations of the Big Three, for someone new to Stoicism, I'd suggest not to start with the popular recommendation of Marcus Aurelius. Start with Seneca's Letters, then Epictetus (an ex-slave, and a profound influence on Marcus Aurelius), and only then Marcus Aurelius, the Roman Emperor. (To quote the foremost Stoic scholar, A.A. Long: "[...] That an ex-slave actually shaped a Roman Emperor's deepest thoughts is one of the most remarkable testimonies to the power and applicability of Epictetus' words.") The quality of the English translation matters a lot. Here are my recommendations: • Seneca: Letters on Ethics — translation by Margaret Graver and A. A. Long. This is the most recent translation, reads extremely well, outstanding notes, and wonderfully typeset. It's translated by the current foremost experts; can't get better than this. I've been reading this for four months. (If this is a tad pricey for you, I've also heard good things about Selected Letters; translated by Elaine Fantham.) • Epictetus: Encheiridion, and Selections from Discourses, by A.A. Long. This is a short book; the value addition here is the great introduction, and the outstanding glossary. (NB: there is no escaping full Discourses of Epictetus—refer below.) • Epictetus: Discourses, Fragments and Handbook — translation by Robin Hard, intro by Christopher Gill; Oxford University Press. Spend a good four months immersing yourself in it. Epictetus is full of heavy irony, dark humor, histrionic wit, and sarcasm. Absolutely my favourite. • Epictetus: A Stoic and Socratic Guide, by A.A. Long. Important Note: To get maximum value out of this, you must have already read at least one translation of Epictetus' full Discourses! This book orients the reader to Epictetus with an extremely valuable context: how not to misinterpret his unqualified faith in "divine providence" (which can grate on our "modern ears"); the influence of Plato and the "Socratic Elenchus" (colloquially known as "Socratic Method"); deep insights into Epictetus' own inimitable style; and a rich bibliography. • Marcus Aurelius: Meditations. There are at least six translations. I'd suggest to start with the gentler translation by Gregory Hays. If you like it, then you can research other translations. (A.S.L Farquharson spent a lifetime on his translation of the Meditations; it also has commentary. I sometimes consult this edition.) • The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, by Pierre Hadot. This needs to be read only after you've read at least one translation of Marcus Aurelius This is a fantastic dissection of Aurelius' work—Hadot studied him for 25 years. Besides fresh translations of the Meditations, it also contains unparalleled summary of Epictetus, and many quotes of Seneca. - - - I'll end with one of my favourite Epictetus quotes: "For sheep, too, don't vomit up their fodder to show the shepherds how much they've eaten, but digest their food inside them, and produce wool and milk on the outside. And so you likewise shouldn't show off your philosophical principles to ordinary people, but rather show them in the actions that result from those principles when they've been properly digested."
bubba1236 6y ago
This is a funny phenomenon with devs going on about "stoicism". I suspect it's from their arrogance to believe in God.
sportsaw 6y ago
I like Stoicism and have read many books on topic. Stoicism provides me with mental tricks to think more positively and be more resilient. However, there are some presuppositions that underlie the philosophy that must be take on faith. “Lead a virtuous life,” for one. But why? What’s the difference if I do not live virtuously? As an Atheist I suppose I do look for these answers in part because I have not accepted the answers from religion. Perhaps Stoicism never claimed to provide a deeper meaning to life, and if one goes in without that expectation one will likely be less prone to disappointment.
- maroonblazer 6y ago
  >“Lead a virtuous life,” for one. But why? Back then - 300 BCE - I could imagine that not leading a virtuous life had much higher costs than they do today, where modern cities and technology afford a measure of anonymity, for better or worse. Still, studies of happiness and well-being seem to show that acts of kindness and generosity lead to higher self-reported happiness. So, there's one answer to "why?".
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- wideasleep1 6y ago
  I may have an incorrect take on the virtue concept, vis-a-vis Stoicism, but felt it was more to do with reducing man's conflict with nature, learning to live within his and its means, as 'virtue'...not the 'just be great to one another' type of virtue. While there is a strong current of social interactions in Stoicism, it mainly lies with treating others as equals on this journey, and not manufacturing enemies out of thin air. I have had a few polite conversations head south in a hurry, with absolutely no malice in my words, that were simply manifestations of the listeners over-reactive imaginations. Hell, I once became someone's enemy, simply by NOT responding at all, or even acknowledging his presence. These were revelatory examples for me, because I had to retrace what could have transpired in my words or tone to evoke such a response, arriving at the conclusion: People can and will manufacture their own barriers and enemies, out of thin air, in order to cope with some dissonance they perceive. Sometimes, the problem is not you.
montroser 6y ago
That is a great quick read. All of those points land nicely, with one exception from my perspective: > We must learn to welcome whatever comes to us and trust that it happens is for the best. I think maybe that was reworked and an extra word for left in, or another got left behind in error... But aside from that, the idea that even bad things were meant to happen for a reason, that somehow later we will come to understand -- that seems to imply a faith in some God or "universe" watching out for us, which seems counter to the general tenets of Stoicism. We can choose to rationalize bad things happening in a way that tries to find opportunities for growth and learning. But that is different than trusting that it is all "for the best."
- steve19 6y ago
  > which seems counter to the general tenets of Stoicism. Not at all. It is neither against nor required by Stoicism. Stoicism is broadly compatible with theism, and Neo-Stoicism was a movement specifically about finding common ground between Christianity with Classical Stoicism, rooted in the fact that both developed around the same time and that Seneca's brother had a meaningful interaction with Paul the Apostle described in the Book of Acts. The Stoics mention Zeus. In The Enchiridion [1], Epictetus says Zeus has fixed his destiny. In this sense Zeus is much like Fate, and the Stoics generally acknowledged fate. There is no implication that what happens to us is "good". Stoicism is about accepting whatever happens and not worrying about it. [1] http://www.gutenberg.org/files/45109/45109-h/45109-h.htm http://www.gutenberg.org/files/45109/45109-h/45109-h.htm
- GuiA 6y ago
  A suggested rephrasing: "We must learn to welcome whatever comes to us and trust that we will be able to make the most of it."
  - lhuser123 6y ago
    Thanks, that sounds more reasonable to me.
r-bryan 6y ago
I can recommend _The Happiness Hypothesis - Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom_, by Jonathan Haidt, as relevant here. The book was suggested to me by a CBT practitioner. It languished on my shelf for several years because it sat adjacent to a bit of new age fluff, and I thought the subtitle sounded like it was another bunch of lost-wisdom-of-the-ancients drivel. I thought wrong: one should not judge a book by its cover. The book is serious -- Haidt is a social psychologist at NYU Stern School -- yet eminently readable. It pulls in relevant aspects of the "ancient wisdom," evaluates them in the context of contemporary research, and shows where they can help us today and where they are outright plain wrong. I can't say it has changed my life yet, but it has helped settle the inchoate bits that I have taken from the Enchiridon, Meditations, etc., into a useful way of thinking about the world and my place in it. Now on to William Braxton Irvine...
- GuiA 6y ago
  So, what’s the ancient wisdom?
- hoanhan101 6y ago
  Thanks for the recommendation!
- mettamage 6y ago
  Ah, Jonathan Haidt haven't heard of him in a long while. I second this. If you like stuff like this, then you also might like: - Search Inside Yourself by Chade Meng-Tan - The Luck Factor by Richard Wiseman I read the Happiness Hypothesis quite late in my development regarding "how to be come happier?" I already knew a lot of the ideas in there, but it presented its ideas a bit more clearly than whatever I read from Martin Seligman (many books) and Suzanne Segerstrom (Optimism). This is why I'd still recommend that book. I also recommend to read the concept on self-learned helplessness (Seligman researched it) if you haven't already. One book that I actively disrecommend nowadays is Man's Search for Meaning. I didn't look too deep into it, but there's a lot of controversy on the truth of his claims (e.g. some claim he was in the concentration camps for a few days, not months or years like he implicitly depicts). Disclaimer: it's these types of books that motivated me to do an entire undergraduate degree in psychology back 6 years ago. Only to realize most of it is nonsense. Yet, at the same time, not all of it is nonsense. Plus it gave me the skills to see what was and what wasn't nonsense.
lhuser123 6y ago
Can someone recommend an audio book on this ?
watwut 6y ago
Reading it, I was like "nah, the reasons for my unhappiness were completely different" but then came this: > Most of us are already living the dream, having a wonderful partner, a dream job, a good car though we take things for granted other than delighting in them I mean, yeah, this is psychological technique only for people who have it all.
watwut 6y ago
The advice on how to deal with people completely ignores existence of abusers, bullies and narcissists. If applied to abusive or potentially abusive relationship, it would go right into the abusive cycle. It is opposite of what you need to do to set boundaries and opposite of what you need to do to recognize first issues as they appear.
tudorw 6y ago
Thanks for that, it's a quick and rewarding read.
playing_colours 6y ago
Can anyone answer if it is really possible to learn, make it natural to be more relaxed, more happy in everyday, without taking medicine? I think I am more anxious than I really need, and can be more relaxed and happy. For example, I study part-time and constantly feel self-inflicted pressure to study properly, making study feel like burden than fun. Or I worry too much about minor issues like broken pump in the garden, finding a kindergarten for my baby, etc. In reality, I am doing fine: I have a good income, great wife and son, no major health issues, I already have a degree and my studies of maths are more for self-growth with room for failure. I understand it logically that I do not want to treat my studies as obligation and can enjoy the process, that I want to be more relaxed and resilient to small problems. But plain understanding does not turn me into a more relaxed personality, as it does not pierce deep enough into the brain. Is there a way to re-wire our brains for better attitude and happiness?
- e1ghtSpace 6y ago
  I hear meditation helps. Whats helped me is acting as if The Law of Attraction is real.
seanwilson 6y ago
> We are unhappy largely because we’re insatiable. After working hard for what we desire, we quickly get bored, dissatisfied, take things for granted and eventually chase new desire. This makes me worry about climate change. For people to want to fly less, buy less, eat more sustainably etc. they'll have to become more satiable or change to only wanting things that have a low environmental impact.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
msms01 6y ago
A few of my fav: A guide to the Good Life by William Irvine The Daily Stoic by Ryan Holiday The Art of Living by Epictetus Meditation by Marcus Aurelius Although not directly related to Stoicism, there are Stoic lessons in them: Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle The Fifth Agreement by don Miguel Ruiz Stumbling on Happiness by Daniel Gilbert

179 points by hoanhan101 6y ago

> Willpower is like muscle power: the more exercise, the stronger they are; the more will power we have, the more self-control and courage we have. IIRC: studies have not validated this

itisit 6y ago
Yes, a dated analogy: https://hbr.org/2016/11/have-we-been-thinking-about-willpower-the-wrong-way-for-30-years https://hbr.org/2016/11/have-we-been-thinking-about-willpowe...
- phkahler 6y ago
  Ego depletion would kinda be the opposite anyway.
  - ReactiveJelly 6y ago
    Anecdotally, exercising my executive function and 'saving' it both don't work. I've always been mostly lazy except for my interest in computers, and it's dumb luck that I got a job where I get paid for the only thing I'm not lazy about. I think it's ADHD, but I'm not diagnosed. Whatever it is, it makes me believe that nobody understands willpower and it might not exist. If I could choose to be better, why haven't I already done it?
dorkwood 6y ago
In my experience willpower is less like a muscle and more like a habit. Right now I'm in the habit of working on side projects every day, so it's easy. Since habits come naturally, what once required willpower now requires no willpower at all. Surely there are studies that confirm habitual tasks are easier to perform than non-habitual ones?
- andai 6y ago
  I've spent the last few years working on my willpower. No improvement. Recently I've been creating social pressure to keep habits (agree to do something every day) and the willpower required is 0 and the results are amazing. When I have someone expecting me to do something I just naturally put in a lot more effort.
ximeng 6y ago
Recent comment on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22920237 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22920237 "The effect likely isn't too big, or it would be harder to design experiments where it doesn't show up at all."
artificialLimbs 6y ago
I don't suspect that willpower will be something people can measure with any degree of usefulness. You can personally verify that it is like a muscle by attempting to enhance your own willpower. I'm not trying to sell you on anything, this is just what I've observed in myself.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

troughway 6y ago

>https://hoanhan101.github.io/about https://hoanhan101.github.io/about I want psychologists to write a solid book on this subject. So far majority of posts that I have read on this subject have been by software developers, which strikes me bizarre. You can leave your Zen and Art of Motorcycle Maintenance out of this. Software developers are not qualified to write about this. They are clueless dingbats and don't know it. How about some proper sources on the subject?

downerending 6y ago
> Zen and Art of Motorcycle Maintenance ?? OP doesn't mention this at all. Also, it's a great book--read it!
- notokay 6y ago
  When I was a teenager, I bought my first motorcycle and this book. I was thinking that this book would contain a tech manual for repairing motorcycles in a special "zen-way". I was very angry when I finished reading it.
  - downerending 6y ago
    Ha ha. Sorry that happened to you. The intro does say: It should in no way be associated with that great body of factual information relating to orthodox Zen Buddhist practice. It's not very factual on motorcycles, either. On the other hand, I hope you enjoyed your motorcycle. Have you looked at the book again? One surprising thing for me is that as I've reread it over the years, it seems different each time.
Trasmatta 6y ago
CBT is based on stoicism, lots has been written about it from psychologists. It also has a lot in common with acceptance based therapy. EDIT: "inspired by" is probably more accurate to say than "based on".
el_dev_hell 6y ago
Sure. Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl. You can make a clear line from Stoic philosophy to his concepts as a psychiatrist.

Svip 6y ago

The problems with Cynicism, Scepticism, Epicureanism and Stoicism is that they don't really adhear to the notion of 'everything in moderation'. The logical extremes either can lead to some genuinely useless approaches to life. If one should never worry about things that they cannot possibly control, even if it directly affects one's life, because we are just going to cease to exist at some point anyway, how would one now whether or not they could alter it, if they never began worrying? This very idea lead to several prominent Stoics to commit suicide, because might as well hasten my eventual ceasing of being? Perhaps if they had concerned themselves with things that on the surface seemed outside of their reach, they might have realised that some things are approachable, even if the solution is not obvious. The idea that one should avoid worry about things outside one's control is not a bad suggestion in general, it just should not be taken as an extreme. I mean, there is probably a reason why philosophers went back to Aristotle and Plato after those other four Schools saw prominence. Jewish, Christian and Islamic philosophers weren't trying to make their religions compatible with Zeno's or Epicurus' teachings, but rather Plato's and later Aristotle's.

Trasmatta 6y ago
I think it's true that none of these philosophies will be a "one size fits all" type thing. Personally, worry and anxiety just makes me useless. When I'm drawn into worries and fears about external factors, it saps me entirely of the energy to deal with just about anything, which is why I find stoicism helpful. I'm sure there are other people who find the stress and anxiety about external factors as motivating and bearable, and would not find stoicism useful. ETA: I don't find everything in stoicism to be useful. I kind of use my own personal "buffet" style approach, where I pick and choose what pieces from different philosophies work best for me.
- Svip 6y ago
  I should have mentioned, that later after they got tired with reading Plato and Aristotle again, Cynicism, Scepticism, Epicureanism and Stoicism all saw new light, but usually they were more combined into general useful advice on living a good life. Cynicism's rejection of social norms, when it re-appeared in the late 18th century, morphed into a disapproval of society in general, and the modern usage of 'cynic' was meant to be someone who rejected social structures, and thus someone's who is negative, rather than someone trying to live a virtuous life without being 'chained' by society.

a-saleh 6y ago

Just beware you actually practice stoicism, acceptance and the good stuff and not just dissociation ;-)

exit 6y ago

> A person’s virtue depends on their excellence as a human being, how well one performs the function for which humans were designed. humans weren't designed, they were selected for through a happenstantial process. random mutation is critical to this process, and so any one of us can be deeply at odds with whatever the majority are geared towards.

ourmandave 6y ago
That's why you have to design your environment instead. For example, this family-size package of Double Stuf Oreos was designed to be eaten, so I will stoically consume every last one of them.
clairity 6y ago
> “humans weren't designed, they were selected for...” unless i’m mistaking your intent, “evolved” might be the better phrasing if you’re objecting to the agency implied by “designed”, as “selected for” also implies similar (super-)agency.
- exit 6y ago
  you're right that "selected for" also implies agency. if i wrote my comment a second time i'd replace that with "came about through". my main intention though is to point out that being the product of an evolutionary process we can't find definitive purpose in our origins.

kashyapc 6y ago

For those who wish to truly deep-dive, I strongly suggest to skip the "meta books" on Stoicism, and go straight to the original works. There's the Big Three—Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius. Be prepared to invest at least ten months (the longer, the better) of active study to get a decent grounding. From my experience of reading multiple translations of the Big Three, for someone new to Stoicism, I'd suggest not to start with the popular recommendation of Marcus Aurelius. Start with Seneca's Letters, then Epictetus (an ex-slave, and a profound influence on Marcus Aurelius), and only then Marcus Aurelius, the Roman Emperor. (To quote the foremost Stoic scholar, A.A. Long: "[...] That an ex-slave actually shaped a Roman Emperor's deepest thoughts is one of the most remarkable testimonies to the power and applicability of Epictetus' words.") The quality of the English translation matters a lot. Here are my recommendations: • Seneca: Letters on Ethics — translation by Margaret Graver and A. A. Long. This is the most recent translation, reads extremely well, outstanding notes, and wonderfully typeset. It's translated by the current foremost experts; can't get better than this. I've been reading this for four months. (If this is a tad pricey for you, I've also heard good things about Selected Letters; translated by Elaine Fantham.) • Epictetus: Encheiridion, and Selections from Discourses, by A.A. Long. This is a short book; the value addition here is the great introduction, and the outstanding glossary. (NB: there is no escaping full Discourses of Epictetus—refer below.) • Epictetus: Discourses, Fragments and Handbook — translation by Robin Hard, intro by Christopher Gill; Oxford University Press. Spend a good four months immersing yourself in it. Epictetus is full of heavy irony, dark humor, histrionic wit, and sarcasm. Absolutely my favourite. • Epictetus: A Stoic and Socratic Guide, by A.A. Long. Important Note: To get maximum value out of this, you must have already read at least one translation of Epictetus' full Discourses! This book orients the reader to Epictetus with an extremely valuable context: how not to misinterpret his unqualified faith in "divine providence" (which can grate on our "modern ears"); the influence of Plato and the "Socratic Elenchus" (colloquially known as "Socratic Method"); deep insights into Epictetus' own inimitable style; and a rich bibliography. • Marcus Aurelius: Meditations. There are at least six translations. I'd suggest to start with the gentler translation by Gregory Hays. If you like it, then you can research other translations. (A.S.L Farquharson spent a lifetime on his translation of the Meditations; it also has commentary. I sometimes consult this edition.) • The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, by Pierre Hadot. This needs to be read only after you've read at least one translation of Marcus Aurelius This is a fantastic dissection of Aurelius' work—Hadot studied him for 25 years. Besides fresh translations of the Meditations, it also contains unparalleled summary of Epictetus, and many quotes of Seneca. - - - I'll end with one of my favourite Epictetus quotes: "For sheep, too, don't vomit up their fodder to show the shepherds how much they've eaten, but digest their food inside them, and produce wool and milk on the outside. And so you likewise shouldn't show off your philosophical principles to ordinary people, but rather show them in the actions that result from those principles when they've been properly digested."

bubba1236 6y ago

This is a funny phenomenon with devs going on about "stoicism". I suspect it's from their arrogance to believe in God.

sportsaw 6y ago

I like Stoicism and have read many books on topic. Stoicism provides me with mental tricks to think more positively and be more resilient. However, there are some presuppositions that underlie the philosophy that must be take on faith. “Lead a virtuous life,” for one. But why? What’s the difference if I do not live virtuously? As an Atheist I suppose I do look for these answers in part because I have not accepted the answers from religion. Perhaps Stoicism never claimed to provide a deeper meaning to life, and if one goes in without that expectation one will likely be less prone to disappointment.

maroonblazer 6y ago
>“Lead a virtuous life,” for one. But why? Back then - 300 BCE - I could imagine that not leading a virtuous life had much higher costs than they do today, where modern cities and technology afford a measure of anonymity, for better or worse. Still, studies of happiness and well-being seem to show that acts of kindness and generosity lead to higher self-reported happiness. So, there's one answer to "why?".
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
wideasleep1 6y ago
I may have an incorrect take on the virtue concept, vis-a-vis Stoicism, but felt it was more to do with reducing man's conflict with nature, learning to live within his and its means, as 'virtue'...not the 'just be great to one another' type of virtue. While there is a strong current of social interactions in Stoicism, it mainly lies with treating others as equals on this journey, and not manufacturing enemies out of thin air. I have had a few polite conversations head south in a hurry, with absolutely no malice in my words, that were simply manifestations of the listeners over-reactive imaginations. Hell, I once became someone's enemy, simply by NOT responding at all, or even acknowledging his presence. These were revelatory examples for me, because I had to retrace what could have transpired in my words or tone to evoke such a response, arriving at the conclusion: People can and will manufacture their own barriers and enemies, out of thin air, in order to cope with some dissonance they perceive. Sometimes, the problem is not you.

montroser 6y ago

That is a great quick read. All of those points land nicely, with one exception from my perspective: > We must learn to welcome whatever comes to us and trust that it happens is for the best. I think maybe that was reworked and an extra word for left in, or another got left behind in error... But aside from that, the idea that even bad things were meant to happen for a reason, that somehow later we will come to understand -- that seems to imply a faith in some God or "universe" watching out for us, which seems counter to the general tenets of Stoicism. We can choose to rationalize bad things happening in a way that tries to find opportunities for growth and learning. But that is different than trusting that it is all "for the best."

steve19 6y ago
> which seems counter to the general tenets of Stoicism. Not at all. It is neither against nor required by Stoicism. Stoicism is broadly compatible with theism, and Neo-Stoicism was a movement specifically about finding common ground between Christianity with Classical Stoicism, rooted in the fact that both developed around the same time and that Seneca's brother had a meaningful interaction with Paul the Apostle described in the Book of Acts. The Stoics mention Zeus. In The Enchiridion [1], Epictetus says Zeus has fixed his destiny. In this sense Zeus is much like Fate, and the Stoics generally acknowledged fate. There is no implication that what happens to us is "good". Stoicism is about accepting whatever happens and not worrying about it. [1] http://www.gutenberg.org/files/45109/45109-h/45109-h.htm http://www.gutenberg.org/files/45109/45109-h/45109-h.htm
GuiA 6y ago
A suggested rephrasing: "We must learn to welcome whatever comes to us and trust that we will be able to make the most of it."
- lhuser123 6y ago
  Thanks, that sounds more reasonable to me.

r-bryan 6y ago

I can recommend _The Happiness Hypothesis - Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom_, by Jonathan Haidt, as relevant here. The book was suggested to me by a CBT practitioner. It languished on my shelf for several years because it sat adjacent to a bit of new age fluff, and I thought the subtitle sounded like it was another bunch of lost-wisdom-of-the-ancients drivel. I thought wrong: one should not judge a book by its cover. The book is serious -- Haidt is a social psychologist at NYU Stern School -- yet eminently readable. It pulls in relevant aspects of the "ancient wisdom," evaluates them in the context of contemporary research, and shows where they can help us today and where they are outright plain wrong. I can't say it has changed my life yet, but it has helped settle the inchoate bits that I have taken from the Enchiridon, Meditations, etc., into a useful way of thinking about the world and my place in it. Now on to William Braxton Irvine...

GuiA 6y ago
So, what’s the ancient wisdom?
hoanhan101 6y ago
Thanks for the recommendation!
mettamage 6y ago
Ah, Jonathan Haidt haven't heard of him in a long while. I second this. If you like stuff like this, then you also might like: - Search Inside Yourself by Chade Meng-Tan - The Luck Factor by Richard Wiseman I read the Happiness Hypothesis quite late in my development regarding "how to be come happier?" I already knew a lot of the ideas in there, but it presented its ideas a bit more clearly than whatever I read from Martin Seligman (many books) and Suzanne Segerstrom (Optimism). This is why I'd still recommend that book. I also recommend to read the concept on self-learned helplessness (Seligman researched it) if you haven't already. One book that I actively disrecommend nowadays is Man's Search for Meaning. I didn't look too deep into it, but there's a lot of controversy on the truth of his claims (e.g. some claim he was in the concentration camps for a few days, not months or years like he implicitly depicts). Disclaimer: it's these types of books that motivated me to do an entire undergraduate degree in psychology back 6 years ago. Only to realize most of it is nonsense. Yet, at the same time, not all of it is nonsense. Plus it gave me the skills to see what was and what wasn't nonsense.

lhuser123 6y ago

Can someone recommend an audio book on this ?

watwut 6y ago

Reading it, I was like "nah, the reasons for my unhappiness were completely different" but then came this: > Most of us are already living the dream, having a wonderful partner, a dream job, a good car though we take things for granted other than delighting in them I mean, yeah, this is psychological technique only for people who have it all.

watwut 6y ago

The advice on how to deal with people completely ignores existence of abusers, bullies and narcissists. If applied to abusive or potentially abusive relationship, it would go right into the abusive cycle. It is opposite of what you need to do to set boundaries and opposite of what you need to do to recognize first issues as they appear.

tudorw 6y ago

Thanks for that, it's a quick and rewarding read.

playing_colours 6y ago

Can anyone answer if it is really possible to learn, make it natural to be more relaxed, more happy in everyday, without taking medicine? I think I am more anxious than I really need, and can be more relaxed and happy. For example, I study part-time and constantly feel self-inflicted pressure to study properly, making study feel like burden than fun. Or I worry too much about minor issues like broken pump in the garden, finding a kindergarten for my baby, etc. In reality, I am doing fine: I have a good income, great wife and son, no major health issues, I already have a degree and my studies of maths are more for self-growth with room for failure. I understand it logically that I do not want to treat my studies as obligation and can enjoy the process, that I want to be more relaxed and resilient to small problems. But plain understanding does not turn me into a more relaxed personality, as it does not pierce deep enough into the brain. Is there a way to re-wire our brains for better attitude and happiness?

e1ghtSpace 6y ago
I hear meditation helps. Whats helped me is acting as if The Law of Attraction is real.

seanwilson 6y ago

> We are unhappy largely because we’re insatiable. After working hard for what we desire, we quickly get bored, dissatisfied, take things for granted and eventually chase new desire. This makes me worry about climate change. For people to want to fly less, buy less, eat more sustainably etc. they'll have to become more satiable or change to only wanting things that have a low environmental impact.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

msms01 6y ago

A few of my fav: A guide to the Good Life by William Irvine The Daily Stoic by Ryan Holiday The Art of Living by Epictetus Meditation by Marcus Aurelius Although not directly related to Stoicism, there are Stoic lessons in them: Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle The Fifth Agreement by don Miguel Ruiz Stumbling on Happiness by Daniel Gilbert