12 ms·

Stoicism seems to be a lost thing these days when everywhere you turn people wish to play the I'm the biggest victim game. While being stoic may not always be

Stoicism seems to be a lost thing these days when everywhere you turn people wish to play the I'm the biggest victim game. While being stoic may not always be the healthiest way to deal with issues in life, the perpetual victim attitude is also not healthy. It's as if people have adopted the Jehovah's Witness attitude of every rejection being a persecution that they can revel in. Who can be the greatest victim. Let us strive for balance and not the extremes.

stanrivers 6y ago
That is something that I struggle with - I think people who think you have to take Stoicism all or nothing have it wrong. But, if you accept that it was average people coming up with the best ideas that they could at the time, that they could wrong, and that you could take what is good and improve on that which is deficient - that is the right way to approach anything generally. The same for Stoicism - don’t treat it as religious dogma - treat as ideas to wrestle with and learn from.
morelisp 6y ago
For a stoic you sure seem to be emotionally invested in other people’s emotional reactions to even further people.
- stanrivers 6y ago
  Interesting point - I've always thought the stoic ideal was that each individual takes charge / responsibility for their own life and tries to live a good life. THEN, if everyone is doing that, as a society, we are better off. Like it is this "first focus on yourself, and then maybe the world around you might be a bit better for everyone" type mentality. So, the best version of you could involve sharing and hoping that others follow a similar philosophy - but at the same time you need to not define yourself as having failed if others disregard it?
  - ByteJockey 6y ago
    If I had to boil it down to a quick sentence, I don't think I'd use the personal responsibility approach. I think I'd go with something like "Not putting value on things outside your control."
    - bserge 6y ago
      That's a great way to summarize it.
    - stanrivers 6y ago
      But I just think that is not completely correct either - a big part of Stoicism, unless I am missing something, is also being a better person holistically. A world where everyone doesn't care about things generally (like a popular negative generalization of Stoicism) doesn't ever work. A world where everyone is focused on being the best version of themselves might work better than everyone being focused on making the best world. I think that gets looped into Stoic teaching as well.
      - ByteJockey 6y ago
        Y'know, I don't think I've ever heard someone use that exact sentence, but I think it's an ok distillation for parts of stoicism (depending on your definition of better, that word has a lot of baggage when applied to human beings), especially the parts Seneca focuses on if I'm recalling them correctly. Ultimately I think the problem is trying to distill it down to a single sentence. Perhaps I was in error in attempting to provide a better example of something that cannot be done adequately, it may have just caused more confusion.
- stanrivers 6y ago
  This is from one of the articles linked in the linked source, using a metaphor around the idea I tried to share above. You can "play the game of life as best you can," (which includes hopefully bettering the lives of others in addition to yourself) but just don't let it define you. "In this case, Epictetus said everybody should play the game of life-that the best play it with "skill, fonn, speed and grace." But like most games, you play it with a ball. Your team devotes all its energies to getting the ball across the line. But after the game, what do you do with the ball? Nobody much cares. It's not worth anything. The competition, the game, was the thing. You play the game with care, making sure you are never making the external a part of yourself, but merely lavishing your skill in regard to it. The ball was just "used" to make the game possible, so just roll it under the porch and forget it, let it wait for the next game. Most important of all, just don't covet it, don't seek it, don't set your heart on it. It is this latter route that makes externals dangerous, makes them the route to slavery"
aklemm 6y ago
Is there any way to quantify this common objection? If I felt this way, I’d suspect it is more likely that I am either ignorant or intolerant of the struggles of these whiners that so annoy me.
joduplessis 6y ago
Well said.
lehi 6y ago
Yes, we who have to hear about victimhood are the real victims.
Inception 6y ago
> Jehovah's Witness attitude I'm not understanding the analogy. If you believe you are being punished for doing something wrong, how is that reveling in persecution? Also, I'm not a Jehovah's Witness, but according to their website, they don't even believe suffering is a punishment for their sins. [0] [0] - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-no3-2018-sep-oct/is-suffering-punishment-from-god/ https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-no3-2018-...
- tumblerz 6y ago
  I believe the reference is to the JW eschatology, which foresees JWs as undergoing a sort of total persecution as a sign of Judgement Times, or Armageddon, or whatever they call it. And, because their form of ministry involves frequently talking to and attempting to convert strangers, they encounter many and various forms of rejection, including critiques, that are understood as harbingers of coming persecution. In this sense daily life comes to reaffirm a broader millenarian vision of the future. phew. So, I think the analogy is meant to say that our current era's secular glorification of victimhood achieves a similar goal by encoding quotidienne experiences of failure or rejection with a larger meaning, in this case being part of an oppressed group. But that's just how I read it. edit: JW childhood, here.
  - elmerfud 6y ago
    You are correct, that's what I was referencing.
    - heavenlyblue 6y ago
      You seem to be 50 years old
johnchristopher 6y ago
> everywhere you turn people wish to play the I'm the biggest victim game. > Let us strive for balance and not the extremes.
yelloweyes 6y ago
Life is dangerous as shit. Playing victim is a way to protect one's self. If you let it, capitalism will tear you apart, eat your entrails, and blame you for being weak.
watwut 6y ago
How is stoicism lost when people talk about it on hackers news like every day. Also, sometimes people are actually victims of s something, even if small injustice. And from experience, trying to act like it is no issue never solves it.
- waihtis 6y ago
  Things happen and time can only move in one direction. What use does it serve to wallow in victimhood and self-pity VS adopting a stoic attitude to events?
  - watwut 6y ago
    Cause people who adopt stoic attitude to evens do not make change. They don't get what they were supposed to, they don't make world better. They are passive. They easily turn into enablers. They end up tempted to claim injustice does not happen further gasslighting victims trying to fight. Speaking as someone who used to think stoic attitude is superior.
    - waihtis 6y ago
      Sounds like you’ve misunderstood stoicism as a concept, but curious how you approach life post-stoicism?
      - watwut 6y ago
        The person i responded to is misunderstanding it the same way when he is building taboo around word victim. As for what after, it would be complicated to answer. I am changing attitudes toward more activity, more willing to show up anger or other emotions when not showing them is the passivity road.
        waihtis 6y ago
        FYI I'm the same person, and I'm not building a taboo around the word victim. Stoicism doesn't advocate for you to be less active. Again, you're misunderstanding the base definition of stoicism. This is much of the same argument I hear about buddhism over here where people somehow think it's a religion of nihilism. Be a victim or more angry or whatever you like, but it's not going to provide solace, meaningful help or generally better outcomes to you in any situation, plus other people will respond less effectively to it.

stanrivers 6y ago

That is something that I struggle with - I think people who think you have to take Stoicism all or nothing have it wrong. But, if you accept that it was average people coming up with the best ideas that they could at the time, that they could wrong, and that you could take what is good and improve on that which is deficient - that is the right way to approach anything generally. The same for Stoicism - don’t treat it as religious dogma - treat as ideas to wrestle with and learn from.

morelisp 6y ago

For a stoic you sure seem to be emotionally invested in other people’s emotional reactions to even further people.

stanrivers 6y ago
Interesting point - I've always thought the stoic ideal was that each individual takes charge / responsibility for their own life and tries to live a good life. THEN, if everyone is doing that, as a society, we are better off. Like it is this "first focus on yourself, and then maybe the world around you might be a bit better for everyone" type mentality. So, the best version of you could involve sharing and hoping that others follow a similar philosophy - but at the same time you need to not define yourself as having failed if others disregard it?
- ByteJockey 6y ago
  If I had to boil it down to a quick sentence, I don't think I'd use the personal responsibility approach. I think I'd go with something like "Not putting value on things outside your control."
  - bserge 6y ago
    That's a great way to summarize it.
  - stanrivers 6y ago
    But I just think that is not completely correct either - a big part of Stoicism, unless I am missing something, is also being a better person holistically. A world where everyone doesn't care about things generally (like a popular negative generalization of Stoicism) doesn't ever work. A world where everyone is focused on being the best version of themselves might work better than everyone being focused on making the best world. I think that gets looped into Stoic teaching as well.
    - ByteJockey 6y ago
      Y'know, I don't think I've ever heard someone use that exact sentence, but I think it's an ok distillation for parts of stoicism (depending on your definition of better, that word has a lot of baggage when applied to human beings), especially the parts Seneca focuses on if I'm recalling them correctly. Ultimately I think the problem is trying to distill it down to a single sentence. Perhaps I was in error in attempting to provide a better example of something that cannot be done adequately, it may have just caused more confusion.
stanrivers 6y ago
This is from one of the articles linked in the linked source, using a metaphor around the idea I tried to share above. You can "play the game of life as best you can," (which includes hopefully bettering the lives of others in addition to yourself) but just don't let it define you. "In this case, Epictetus said everybody should play the game of life-that the best play it with "skill, fonn, speed and grace." But like most games, you play it with a ball. Your team devotes all its energies to getting the ball across the line. But after the game, what do you do with the ball? Nobody much cares. It's not worth anything. The competition, the game, was the thing. You play the game with care, making sure you are never making the external a part of yourself, but merely lavishing your skill in regard to it. The ball was just "used" to make the game possible, so just roll it under the porch and forget it, let it wait for the next game. Most important of all, just don't covet it, don't seek it, don't set your heart on it. It is this latter route that makes externals dangerous, makes them the route to slavery"

aklemm 6y ago

Is there any way to quantify this common objection? If I felt this way, I’d suspect it is more likely that I am either ignorant or intolerant of the struggles of these whiners that so annoy me.

joduplessis 6y ago

Well said.

lehi 6y ago

Yes, we who have to hear about victimhood are the real victims.

Inception 6y ago

> Jehovah's Witness attitude I'm not understanding the analogy. If you believe you are being punished for doing something wrong, how is that reveling in persecution? Also, I'm not a Jehovah's Witness, but according to their website, they don't even believe suffering is a punishment for their sins. [0] [0] - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-no3-2018-sep-oct/is-suffering-punishment-from-god/ https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-no3-2018-...

tumblerz 6y ago
I believe the reference is to the JW eschatology, which foresees JWs as undergoing a sort of total persecution as a sign of Judgement Times, or Armageddon, or whatever they call it. And, because their form of ministry involves frequently talking to and attempting to convert strangers, they encounter many and various forms of rejection, including critiques, that are understood as harbingers of coming persecution. In this sense daily life comes to reaffirm a broader millenarian vision of the future. phew. So, I think the analogy is meant to say that our current era's secular glorification of victimhood achieves a similar goal by encoding quotidienne experiences of failure or rejection with a larger meaning, in this case being part of an oppressed group. But that's just how I read it. edit: JW childhood, here.
- elmerfud 6y ago
  You are correct, that's what I was referencing.
  - heavenlyblue 6y ago
    You seem to be 50 years old

johnchristopher 6y ago

> everywhere you turn people wish to play the I'm the biggest victim game. > Let us strive for balance and not the extremes.

yelloweyes 6y ago

Life is dangerous as shit. Playing victim is a way to protect one's self. If you let it, capitalism will tear you apart, eat your entrails, and blame you for being weak.

watwut 6y ago

How is stoicism lost when people talk about it on hackers news like every day. Also, sometimes people are actually victims of s something, even if small injustice. And from experience, trying to act like it is no issue never solves it.

waihtis 6y ago
Things happen and time can only move in one direction. What use does it serve to wallow in victimhood and self-pity VS adopting a stoic attitude to events?
- watwut 6y ago
  Cause people who adopt stoic attitude to evens do not make change. They don't get what they were supposed to, they don't make world better. They are passive. They easily turn into enablers. They end up tempted to claim injustice does not happen further gasslighting victims trying to fight. Speaking as someone who used to think stoic attitude is superior.
  - waihtis 6y ago
    Sounds like you’ve misunderstood stoicism as a concept, but curious how you approach life post-stoicism?
    - watwut 6y ago
      The person i responded to is misunderstanding it the same way when he is building taboo around word victim. As for what after, it would be complicated to answer. I am changing attitudes toward more activity, more willing to show up anger or other emotions when not showing them is the passivity road.
      - waihtis 6y ago
        FYI I'm the same person, and I'm not building a taboo around the word victim. Stoicism doesn't advocate for you to be less active. Again, you're misunderstanding the base definition of stoicism. This is much of the same argument I hear about buddhism over here where people somehow think it's a religion of nihilism. Be a victim or more angry or whatever you like, but it's not going to provide solace, meaningful help or generally better outcomes to you in any situation, plus other people will respond less effectively to it.