24 ms·

The Joys of Being a Stoic

239 points by fluctuation 6y ago

blux 6y ago
If you are interested in Stoicism as a life philosophy, I recommend 'A guide to the Good Life' by William B. Irvine (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5617966-a-guide-to-the-good-life https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5617966-a-guide-to-the-g...).
- huseyinkeles 6y ago
  Daily Stoic [0] newsletters are also recommended. They usually send very short and to the point emails. [0] - https://dailystoic.com https://dailystoic.com
  - blux 6y ago
    Thank you for the recommendation!
- loopasam 6y ago
  My favorite reference book on the topic is: https://www.amazon.com/Practicing-Stoic-Philosophical-Users-Manual/dp/1567926118 https://www.amazon.com/Practicing-Stoic-Philosophical-Users-...
TheNorthman 6y ago
Stoicism seems to get a lot of positive attention on Hacker News. While I support more philosophical content on HN, there usually isn't as much criticism of stoicism as any other topic. In the spirit of delegating to others who know more than me, here is an excerpt about stoicism from Friedrich Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil: > You desire to LIVE ‘according to Nature’? Oh, you noble Stoics, what fraud of words! Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power—how COULD you live in accordance with such indifference? To live—is not that just endeavouring to be otherwise than this Nature? Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different? And granted that your imperative, ‘living according to Nature,’ means actually the same as ‘living according to life’—how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be? > In reality, however, it is quite otherwise with you: while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature, you want something quite the contrary, you extraordinary stage-players and self-deluders! In your pride you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you insist that it shall be Nature ‘according to the Stoa,’ and would like everything to be made after your own image, as a vast, eternal glorification and generalism of Stoicism! With all your love for truth, you have forced yourselves so long, so persistently, and with such hypnotic rigidity to see Nature FALSELY, that is to say, Stoically, that you are no longer able to see it otherwise— and to crown all, some unfathomable superciliousness gives you the Bedlamite hope that BECAUSE you are able to tyrannize over yourselves—Stoicism is selftyranny—Nature will also allow herself to be tyrannized over: is not the Stoic a PART of Nature? ... > But this is an old and everlasting story: what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual Will to Power, the will to ‘creation of the world,’ the will to the causa prima.
- spacemark 6y ago
  Nietzsche's criticisms of Stoicism are well-known and there exists a plethora of constructive responses. Some of his points are valid, particularly regarding an outdated concept of nature as an intelligent teleological universe, but some points are a bit of a strawman created for what seems to simply be persuasive effect.
  - TheNorthman 6y ago
    I'm not intimately familiar with stoicism. If you could elaborate on what part you feel is a straw-man or even link to some of the `constructive responses' I'd appreciate it.
    - spacemark 6y ago
      while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature - here Nietzsche accuses all stoics of being hypocrites. Surely there are some who are not. you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you insist that it shall be Nature ‘according to the Stoa,’ and would like everything to be made after your own image - I know of no Stoic, ancient or modern, who advocates this. what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. - the Stoics consistently cautioned against dogma, evidenced in practice by the abundance of various interpretations - Marcus Aurelius's interpretation differs in ways from Seneca's, which differs in ways from Epictetus's, Zeno's, Chrysippus's, etc. A common saying among modern Stoics is "Stoicism has no pope." As for constructive responses, google "responding to nietzsche on stoicism."
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - Amezarak 6y ago
        > I know of no Stoic, ancient or modern, who advocates this. Nietzsche is not saying that Stoics are consciously doing this, rather that it's an unconscious process - and in Nietzsche's view, a rather fundamental one that far from just the Stoics are involved in. One of Nietzsche's central tenets is that pretty much all 'knowledge' and 'belief' is just us projecting our interpretations (rooted in what we would now term cognitive biases, value judgements, sensations, etc) on reality and then "reading" them back to ourselves as the ground truth, which is in fact unknowable as such. In general, Nietzsche regards philosophical attitudes as determined by physiology and environment, and in fact says later that Stoicism is a fine medicine for certain kinds of people in some periods of time.
spacemark 6y ago
>Apply the dichotomy of control and the four virtues to everything you do and, as Epictetus promises, you will never be unhappy. You will be free, and you will live a life truly worth living. We all fall short of this ideal, of course. Yet trying to live up to it really works. That "really works" part is why approximately 80% of western therapists practice CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) which was pioneered by Albert Ellis and his team after inspiration from capital S Stoicism. Not psychoanalysis or any of the other popular 20th century approaches to the mental health of modern man, but a derivative of Stoicism that has proved very powerful. As someone who has been reading Stoic works for 5+ years and for the last two years practicing my own derivation on a daily basis, a part of me agrees that the conflating of the modern adjective stoic and the philosophy and approach of Stoicism is indeed unfortunate. However, I do not believe that this is the primary barrier to entry, but rather the fact that practicing the philosophy is hard, slow work. Just as effective CBT asks a lot of the patient, Stoicism is not a quick fix. In some ways I see the misnomer as a tiny hurdle to entry that weeds out those only interested in dialectic rather than the hard work of changing and crafting one's character. I would be dishonest if I didn't also point out that Ancient Stoicism has some fundamental problems that are also likely a barrier to the thoughtful. One of its founding pillars is a teleological universe which, thanks to advances in science, we now know to be false. Further, Stoicism glosses over aspects of human behavior (such as addiction and trauma) and is outdated in its approach to inter-community relations, approaching social contracts in the context of small, warlike city states (and later in the context of an authoritarian, imperialistic empire). A modern, widely adoptable descendant of Ancient Stoicism would be quite different and most certainly wouldn't be called Stoicism. In the end, I don't believe the layperson's misunderstanding of Stoicism needs to be fixed. Truth needs no defense - the predictive and eudaimonic power of Stoicism is there for anyone to pluck if they have the impulse to reach for it and the courage to do the hard work of applying and reforming the self, along with the philosophy. That said, it's awesome, you all should check it out.
- ed312 6y ago
  > outdated in its approach to inter-community relations, approaching social contracts in the context of small, warlike city states (and later in the context of an authoritarian, imperialistic empire). Is that actually outdated? There are fewer "entire community mobilized against existential threat" type wars these days, but there seems to be a constant brew of conflict world wide (proxy wars, drone strikes, etc). Frankly, I find Stoicism one of the best ways to cope with the two quotes I keep hearing in my mind: "high school never ends" and "war never changes". Finally - We're just on the very tip of the cusp of the effects of climate change. Entire regions supported by subsistence farming for millennia will within a lifetime become a literal hell. As we go from a world of seemingly endless abundance to constrained resources (arable land, potable water, etc.) I think "war like city states" more closely represents our future than anyone really wants to accept.
bumby 6y ago
Nancy Sherman has written about how to balance Stoicism with modern life. In particular, with the idea of a stoic lack of emotion: "But the very numbness that can be so adaptive to survival, can also erect walls that stand in the way of human attachment and trust. I am all for Stoic teachings of empowerment of agency. But we are, as Marcus Aurelius knew well, citizens of the universe, attached to each other, and deeply affected by the social worlds and practices and institutions of which we are a part. To forget our membership and responsibilities in the social world and how that affects our life chances is to forget who we are."[1] I am by no means well-versed in Stoicism, just have found much of it useful personally. Sherman has done the best job I can find of speaking to striking a balance between stoic detachment but still maintaining the emotional connections that bond us as humans. [1]https://dailystoic.com/nancy-sherman/ https://dailystoic.com/nancy-sherman/
- spacemark 6y ago
  >striking a balance between stoic detachment but still maintaining the emotional connections that bond us as humans. This isn't new to Sherman, she is just reforming for our modern times similar arguments made by the ancients. None of the ancient Stoics endorsed unfeeling detachment. They endorsed detachment from things not in our control, but they rejected the Cynic school's conclusion that living according to nature meant asceticism. To the contrary, to ancient Stoics civil action and involvement was a duty, and enjoying our emotions to the fullest was the very reward eudaimonia promised.
  - bumby 6y ago
    I agree. To the articles point, the (little "s") stoicism is conflated with the philosophy and sometimes misinterpreted in this regard. I've just personally found her writings more accessible for addressing the original texts on this point.
- jasperry 6y ago
  I'm also not a scholar of stoicism, but from my reading Epictetus teaches pretty plainly that you shouldn't care at all about anything you can't control. I don't think that's realistic. Though of course it's good to focus our efforts on what we have hope of changing, I think the Stoics miss the importance of actively seeking out ways that we can make things better for ourselves and others. They instead cast everything as "duty" in conformance to "nature", two very slippery concepts. Scholars have noted that Stoicism flourished in environments where people had to cope with severe disempowerment (such as being caught up in the politics of the Roman Empire.) I hope most of us are not in situations where we have to resort to the 100% stoic mindset.
throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
Joy/Stoicism - isn't that an oxymoron? Edit: instead of hitting the downvote perhaps someone could have done a little explanation, or pointed me in the right direction. The wiki page corrects my misapprehension, which is more than anyone else has done here, to wit Ancient stoics are often misunderstood because the terms they used pertained to different concepts than today. The word "stoic" has since come to mean "unemotional"
- devilduck 6y ago
  Many people on HN love to pretend they are highly intelligent and purely rational but then have no problem downvoting emotional content. Silly!
- TacoSteemers 6y ago
  Did you mean to ask if they are a contradiction in terms? I'm not an expert, but would say that they are not. As far as I can tell the modern word 'stoic' does not give a good idea of what Stoicism is about. In regards to feelings, I believe the idea behind Stoicism is happiness can be found as a result of not letting ourselves suffer from 'unreasonable' thoughts. To quote wikipedia: "... the Stoics held that unhappiness and evil are the results of human ignorance of the reason in nature. If someone is unkind, it is because they are unaware of their own universal reason, which leads to the conclusion of unkindness. The solution to evil and unhappiness then is the practice of Stoic philosophy: to examine one's own judgments and behavior and determine where they diverge from the universal reason of nature." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism#Ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism#Ethics
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    Indeed an apparent contradiction. Just my misunderstanding. Thanks.
- spacemark 6y ago
  Just a thought, the downvotes may be because your comment read like you wanted someone to read you the first google search result. ;) I could be way off though.
sn41 6y ago
I have found that adopting stoic principles actually reduces my motivation to do anything. I think stoicism lacks the emotional content and passion that causes us to attempt great things. Of course, there may be grief and disappointment, but being detached at the outset seems to rob me of some of the impetus and grit required.
- spacemark 6y ago
  What are these Stoic principles you refer to? Because the only good in Stoicism is virtue, which obligates us to do the greatest things possible within our power.
- inscionent 6y ago
  Being Stoic does not require one to give up ambitions, self improvement or planning. It only requires that you stay open to the good and guard against the bad. “Accept the things to which fate binds you, and love the people with whom fate brings you together, but do so with all your heart.” ~ Aurelius "Our life is what our thoughts make of it." ~ Aurelius "It's a rough road that leads to the heights of greatness." ~ Seneca
- shakna 6y ago
  Passion to enjoy life is a founding principle of stoicism. Whilst there is a lot of thought around letting go of stress, and emotions that might be viewed as negative, there's a lot about seeking out enjoyment and pleasure as well. The "no passion" often seems to come across as a translation issue. > Never to give the impression of anger or any other passion, but to combine complete freedom of passion with the greatest of human affection. - Aurelius The greatest of human affection, the love of one another, is clearly not passionless, as we understand it. We're supposed to get excited about family, about love, about truth and justice, according to other parts of the Meditations. Life isn't meant to be empty and disconnected. Its just about choosing things that are worth getting excited about.
- contravariant 6y ago
  I suppose I could argue here that you may have misunderstood stoicism, but the funny thing about stoicism is that it's kind of pointless to argue back and forth about what makes one a stoic. A true stoic wouldn't care if they were stoic, they'd simply be. > Put an end once for all to this discussion of what a good man should be, and be one.
devilduck 6y ago
It's pretty narrow to believe that one can just "become stoic" but I certainly appreciate the notions of stoicism.
throwaway1492 6y ago
Edit got it thanks for clarifying.
- redwoolf 6y ago
  This isn't Stoicism. There's no eudaimonia in that way of life which is a fundamental part of Stoicism.
- miketery 6y ago
  Not sure if joking or a troll, either way that's certainly not what stoicism is. Stoicism is about the fact that when anything happens there is the physical cost (car breaking, getting sick with the flu, getting a divorce), and an emotional cost (getting angry, dwelling on it, disconnecting from reality). Stoicism says you can control the latter and improve your life as a result. Probably the best way to manage it, is to be objective about your reality. And then there are other tools, like reframing, taking setbacks as challenges to improve and become more resilient, and many more. End of the day, we're tiny ants on this space rock, enjoy it, and take it as it comes.
- namero999 6y ago
  Together with Schopenhauer being considered a "pessimist", this is a recurring misconception. Not sure where you discovered that something like you described is stoicism, but it surely doesn't fit. "I'll pretend this person doesn't exist" is probably closer to a mild form of depression than to one of stoicism's main tenets, i.e., focus on what you can control, don't let yourself being derailed by negative emotions arising from facts outside of your agency. edit: typo
cambalache 6y ago
A little ironic that the author, who is a person who has done a lot to popularize Stoicism (at least his take on it) is a man whose public behavior I would never associate with that term.This also applies to other stoicism popular writers like Tucker Max, Ryan Holiday and Tim Ferris. It reminds me of a research I read some years ago about how ethics professors were in average not more ethical than the average person.
- croissants 6y ago
  Tucker Max is a stoicism popular writer? The guy who wrote American Pie-type stories on the internet in the 2000s?
  - paulpauper 6y ago
    no, he confused him for Ryan Holliday
A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
>Apply the dichotomy of control and the four virtues to everything you do and, as Epictetus promises, you will never be unhappy. You will be free, and you will live a life truly worth living. We all fall short of this ideal, of course. Yet trying to live up to it really works. Naturally, the obvious criticism is that while you may not be unhappy, it may an indication that you are not actually living. At best, you exist without allowing yourself to 'feel'. To live is to feel pain.
draw_down 6y ago
> Edith Hall, a King’s College, London, classics scholar, wrote: “Authentic ancient Stoicism was pessimistic and grim. It denounced pleasure....” And she is not alone. There is a cottage industry of papers on stoicism in psychology, built on the same stereotype. Sure, maybe the classics scholar is an ingoramus trafficking in dumb stereotypes. Or maybe they've thought about it as much as you have, and arrived at a different conclusion. And who the hell said anything about psychology?!
1experience 6y ago
I have realized that stoic philosophy gives me a peaceful/powerful feeling in the immediate while giving me little help in my critical situations. Marco Aurelio's meditations came from his life, each of his thoughts was connected to an often painful mistake/experience and was meant for his future self. It isn't easy to transfer this behavioral wisdom from one person to another just through writing. Abstract thinkings without a strong connection to your own reality (experiences) often don't produce a strong enough effect to apply them in your own difficult situations. In the dialogue, Socrates recounts the story of the god Theuth, or Ammon, who offers the king Thamus the gift of letters: This, said Theuth, will make the Egyptians wiser and give them better memories; it is a specific both for the memory and for the wit. Thamus replied: O most ingenious Theuth, the parent or inventor of an art is not always the best judge of the utility or inutility of his own inventions to the users of them. And in this instance, you who are the father of letters, from a paternal love of your own children have been led to attribute to them a quality which they cannot have; for this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality. (Phaedrus, Plato)
bcatanzaro 6y ago
I stopped reading as soon as the article said anger is an unhealthy emotion. That is such a damaging idea. Anger can be unhealthy, but so can many other emotions including shame (which is often the alternative to anger). Anger can also be healthy - it is a signal from deep within that something in our environment must change. Anger is often the catalyst for making necessary change. Now of course too much anger is damaging, no question. But the dose makes the poison. A little anger at the right time can be transformative and it can be super healthy.
- 1experience 6y ago
  All emotions are theoretically beneficial to oneself (survive and reproduce), otherwise they would not have evolved and would not have persisted during evolution.
- richardbrevig 6y ago
  You may enjoy Plutchik's dyadic wheel of emotions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_connection#/media/File:Plutchik_Dyads.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_connection#/media/File:... In it, he lists anger as the opposite of fear. And shame is the combination of fear and disgust (the opposite of trust).
- CarelessExpert 6y ago
  > I stopped reading as soon as the article said anger is an unhealthy emotion. Anger not turned to constructive action is an unhealthy emotion. Unfortunately, that kind of nuance isn't gonna get captured in an intro to Stoicism blog post. Stoicism teaches that, in those moments where you feel that flash of anger, pause and ask yourself: what in this situation can I do that's in my control that can lead to a constructive outcome? If the answer is absolutely nothing, then the goal is to recognize that and let that anger subside because it's fruitless and harmful. This is the essence of the dichotomy of control: if you can't control something, then getting worked up about it only harms yourself. But it's very rare that we have absolutely no control in a situation, and in those cases where we have some measure of control, Stoicism as a philosophy challenges us to find the constructive action that lets us turn that challenge into an opportunity while allowing us to replace that anger with a sense of constructive purpose. And in fact choosing acceptance is an action itself, and therefore such situations become opportunities for personal growth that hopefully leads us to becoming a more kind, patient, humane individual. Anyway, that's not to say that Stoicism is a cure-all or that it's good for everyone. Maybe for you it's the wrong choice! But your comment is a perfect example of how people continuously misunderstand Stoic thought and then disregard it out of hand, which is precisely what this article is all about.
bryanrasmussen 6y ago
the joys of being a stoic makes me think of the sexual conquests of a celibate.
st1x7 6y ago
My impressions from reading about stoicism have been - all of this is pretty obvious stuff, why all the books and discussions - it's weird to identify yourself with in ideology and call yourself "a stoic" I really don't get the hype about it.
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  What specifically did you find so obvious?
  - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
    Profound insights often seem obvious when stated.
    - pmoriarty 6y ago
      That's not specific.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- lordleft 6y ago
  As a practitioner of Stoicism, some people do seem to naturally jive with this philosophy. It might seem obvious to you because your inner life is in alignment with what it is arguing. That being said, lots of people struggle to "get" Stoicism, because they grew up believing that happiness and worth reside in something they can't fully control. For many people, it is not remotely obvious that your life is valuable if you're not rich, or handsome, or successful. It's also important to understand that Stoicism is a serious, well-argued philosophy comprised of arguments that dialogue or disagree with rival philosophical schools, like Epicureanism or Aristotelian philosophy. It contains many arguments that I feel are decidedly not obvious: * Virtue is the only good * Happiness resides in only what we fully control (our response to external circumstances), and not in things that are outside our control, or partially under the influences of things outside our control * Wisdom (the ability to exercise reason to make the wisest choices) is the most valuable faculty * We are fundamentally cosmopolitan, and see ourselves as part of a broadly human polis, instead of seeing ourselves as only Athenian, American, Indian, etc * We must act for the social good, even though we are not guaranteed success (i.e. Stoicism is NOT quietism; this particular claim puts Stoicism against the Epicureans) In fact, many people would find the fundamental framing of Stoic ethics dubious. If you're a deontologist, you'll be irritated that Stoicism often doesn't give an exact answer to a particular ethical question -- it instead emphasizes crafting a good character, and deducing the right response from what a good person would do, given the circumstances. Surely you'd want an exact answer that obtains in all situations -- none of this wishy washy virtue ethics stuff.
paulpauper 6y ago
>If there is nothing you can do about a particular situation, why beat yourself up about it? because people who have a stake in things going a certain way, would prefer it to go that way. Otherwise why bother trying if you have no control over the outcome. If we're all going to die, which is h ultimate and final fate of everyone, why do anything? The problem with stoicism is it is kinda a dead end and it creates unrealistic expectations. Ideally, people would not worry so much about things outside of their control, but that is not how people work. Much of modern scientific progress hinges on people trying to control their environment, such as treating disease. Should we just give up on that.
- lordleft 6y ago
  You try because there's a chance of getting the outcome you want, but you don't tether your happiness to that outcome. You accept the limited control you have -- this is how Stoics reconcile the pursuit of mental imperturbation with the pursuit of outcomes. To Quote Cicero, remaking on the Stoics: “If a man were to make it his purpose to take a true aim with a spear or arrow at some mark, his ultimate end, corresponding to the ultimate good as we pronounce it, would be to do all he could to aim straight … whereas the actual hitting of the mark would be in our phrase ‘to be chosen’ but not ‘to be desired.'” So a Stoic might try to effectuate a particular outcome in, say, her political life -- choosing actions that align with the outcome, but does not "desire" it -- meaning her self-worth and happiness is tightly bound with whether she gets it or not. It's a fair thing to ask how psychologically tenable this is. Some people may struggle with this kind of framing. I personally have found it liberating.
lordleft 6y ago
I am a patron of the writer of this article. He's a fascinating dude, having practiced as a evolutionary biologist for years before pivoting to philosophy. His patreon: https://www.patreon.com/MassimoPigliucci https://www.patreon.com/MassimoPigliucci His free blog, which is now deprecated (but has a ton of existing content): https://howtobeastoic.wordpress.com/ https://howtobeastoic.wordpress.com/
magwa101 6y ago
Stoics were only in the upper classes of greece.
aitchnyu 6y ago
Tangential, but what are the improvements to daily life caused by Stoics? The usual claims are human rights improvements and CBT, the therapy with the highest success rates.
starpilot 6y ago
This is a mandatory component of the hustle: https://youtu.be/_o7qjN3KF8U https://youtu.be/_o7qjN3KF8U
stakkur 6y ago
I don't think the writer who won the award was speaking about Stoicism, but rather stoicism. 'stoic' is part of our popular vocabuluary, but I doubt that most people saying it are referring to the set of principles and writings that we think of as Stoicism.
RhodoYolo 6y ago
No one talks about the fact that one of the biggest stoics, Marcus Aurelius was a terrible emperor the roman empire. He settled the goths inside roman land with a forced migration - which didn't turn out too well not too long later. Teleological thinking is built into Stoicism that is the kink in it's armour. He 'taught' you how to live a good life, in a journal that was 'his personal journal, not meant for publication'. It clearly reads like it was meant to be published and his son turned out to be commodes, easily top 5 worst emporers of all time.
- ssivark 6y ago
  FYI, “chink” in the armor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chink_in_one%27s_armor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chink_in_one%27s_armor
- mstipetic 6y ago
  How does it "clearly read like it was meant to be published?"
  - RhodoYolo 6y ago
    Well - Maybe there was some light editing done. But to keep it so unpersonal is personally amazing to me if you thought no one was ever going to see it.
- phist_mcgee 6y ago
  Sounds like you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I don't read into Marcus Aurelius' personal achievements as a vindication of stoicism, and nor do I care if his diary was for public consumption. His musings and messages are much more important to me. That's like criticising Jesus because he was betrayed by one of his disciples.
  - RhodoYolo 6y ago
    This is fair. My personal philosophy is to imitate success. Marcus was born to the purple so it makes sense to limit and find balance in the stoics before him. True stoics have this 'lack of free will' twinge to them, where bad things happening is a way of life and you have to just roll with the punches. Let's look at another Stoic and his accomplishments, seneca. He was exiled, came back and tutored Nero (Another crazy emperor) and ended up killing himself. Why is Stoicism held to such a high standard when it's examples are so poor. It seems to turn people into this laconic acceptance instead of having fun and doing stupid shit for the sake of it.
herdcall 6y ago
Trouble is that we can't always tell what's in our control and what isn't. Who would've thought a thousand years ago that we could fly to the moon? I'm reminded here of the beautiful quote by Bernard Shaw: "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  That requires a very specific understanding of progress. It requires that you take the position that the world is an imperfect place for humans to live, and that there are adaptations which make it better. Although this isn't unlikely, it's also not self-evidently true.
  - herdcall 6y ago
    True, but we (humans) are always aspiring to be better, even if things aren't broken per se. My point was that we don't always know what we can't do, so when do we stop trying? Then there's the fallacy of composition. Each of us may be powerless as individuals to make a change, like political or social reform, but collectively we often can.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
      > we (humans) are always aspiring to be better, Various religious, spiritual and even political belief systems through time and space take a different position on this. Buddhism in particular encourages an acceptance of the world as it-is (while also encourages small acts within that world to reduce suffering). There are many religious systems in which one becomes better only as a spiritual, inward matter, not by changing the world.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- tonyedgecombe 6y ago
  Doesn't that assume that changing the world is the only route worth pursuing. I seem to remember Elon Musk saying that people shouldn't aspire to be like him because it wouldn't be a good life for most people. Some people are wired for that sort of thing, I know I'm not.
glouwbug 6y ago
Anyone read the manga Berserk? The protagonist Guts is the embodiment of suffering. True stoicism
ruytlm 6y ago
By the same author from 2017: https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/5258/what-the-stoics-did-for-us https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/5258/what-the-stoics-did... Discussed at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15799592 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15799592

239 points by fluctuation 6y ago

blux 6y ago

If you are interested in Stoicism as a life philosophy, I recommend 'A guide to the Good Life' by William B. Irvine (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5617966-a-guide-to-the-good-life https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5617966-a-guide-to-the-g...).

huseyinkeles 6y ago
Daily Stoic [0] newsletters are also recommended. They usually send very short and to the point emails. [0] - https://dailystoic.com https://dailystoic.com
- blux 6y ago
  Thank you for the recommendation!
loopasam 6y ago
My favorite reference book on the topic is: https://www.amazon.com/Practicing-Stoic-Philosophical-Users-Manual/dp/1567926118 https://www.amazon.com/Practicing-Stoic-Philosophical-Users-...

TheNorthman 6y ago

Stoicism seems to get a lot of positive attention on Hacker News. While I support more philosophical content on HN, there usually isn't as much criticism of stoicism as any other topic. In the spirit of delegating to others who know more than me, here is an excerpt about stoicism from Friedrich Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil: > You desire to LIVE ‘according to Nature’? Oh, you noble Stoics, what fraud of words! Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power—how COULD you live in accordance with such indifference? To live—is not that just endeavouring to be otherwise than this Nature? Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different? And granted that your imperative, ‘living according to Nature,’ means actually the same as ‘living according to life’—how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be? > In reality, however, it is quite otherwise with you: while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature, you want something quite the contrary, you extraordinary stage-players and self-deluders! In your pride you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you insist that it shall be Nature ‘according to the Stoa,’ and would like everything to be made after your own image, as a vast, eternal glorification and generalism of Stoicism! With all your love for truth, you have forced yourselves so long, so persistently, and with such hypnotic rigidity to see Nature FALSELY, that is to say, Stoically, that you are no longer able to see it otherwise— and to crown all, some unfathomable superciliousness gives you the Bedlamite hope that BECAUSE you are able to tyrannize over yourselves—Stoicism is selftyranny—Nature will also allow herself to be tyrannized over: is not the Stoic a PART of Nature? ... > But this is an old and everlasting story: what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual Will to Power, the will to ‘creation of the world,’ the will to the causa prima.

spacemark 6y ago
Nietzsche's criticisms of Stoicism are well-known and there exists a plethora of constructive responses. Some of his points are valid, particularly regarding an outdated concept of nature as an intelligent teleological universe, but some points are a bit of a strawman created for what seems to simply be persuasive effect.
- TheNorthman 6y ago
  I'm not intimately familiar with stoicism. If you could elaborate on what part you feel is a straw-man or even link to some of the `constructive responses' I'd appreciate it.
  - spacemark 6y ago
    while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature - here Nietzsche accuses all stoics of being hypocrites. Surely there are some who are not. you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you insist that it shall be Nature ‘according to the Stoa,’ and would like everything to be made after your own image - I know of no Stoic, ancient or modern, who advocates this. what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. - the Stoics consistently cautioned against dogma, evidenced in practice by the abundance of various interpretations - Marcus Aurelius's interpretation differs in ways from Seneca's, which differs in ways from Epictetus's, Zeno's, Chrysippus's, etc. A common saying among modern Stoics is "Stoicism has no pope." As for constructive responses, google "responding to nietzsche on stoicism."
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - Amezarak 6y ago
      > I know of no Stoic, ancient or modern, who advocates this. Nietzsche is not saying that Stoics are consciously doing this, rather that it's an unconscious process - and in Nietzsche's view, a rather fundamental one that far from just the Stoics are involved in. One of Nietzsche's central tenets is that pretty much all 'knowledge' and 'belief' is just us projecting our interpretations (rooted in what we would now term cognitive biases, value judgements, sensations, etc) on reality and then "reading" them back to ourselves as the ground truth, which is in fact unknowable as such. In general, Nietzsche regards philosophical attitudes as determined by physiology and environment, and in fact says later that Stoicism is a fine medicine for certain kinds of people in some periods of time.

spacemark 6y ago

>Apply the dichotomy of control and the four virtues to everything you do and, as Epictetus promises, you will never be unhappy. You will be free, and you will live a life truly worth living. We all fall short of this ideal, of course. Yet trying to live up to it really works. That "really works" part is why approximately 80% of western therapists practice CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) which was pioneered by Albert Ellis and his team after inspiration from capital S Stoicism. Not psychoanalysis or any of the other popular 20th century approaches to the mental health of modern man, but a derivative of Stoicism that has proved very powerful. As someone who has been reading Stoic works for 5+ years and for the last two years practicing my own derivation on a daily basis, a part of me agrees that the conflating of the modern adjective stoic and the philosophy and approach of Stoicism is indeed unfortunate. However, I do not believe that this is the primary barrier to entry, but rather the fact that practicing the philosophy is hard, slow work. Just as effective CBT asks a lot of the patient, Stoicism is not a quick fix. In some ways I see the misnomer as a tiny hurdle to entry that weeds out those only interested in dialectic rather than the hard work of changing and crafting one's character. I would be dishonest if I didn't also point out that Ancient Stoicism has some fundamental problems that are also likely a barrier to the thoughtful. One of its founding pillars is a teleological universe which, thanks to advances in science, we now know to be false. Further, Stoicism glosses over aspects of human behavior (such as addiction and trauma) and is outdated in its approach to inter-community relations, approaching social contracts in the context of small, warlike city states (and later in the context of an authoritarian, imperialistic empire). A modern, widely adoptable descendant of Ancient Stoicism would be quite different and most certainly wouldn't be called Stoicism. In the end, I don't believe the layperson's misunderstanding of Stoicism needs to be fixed. Truth needs no defense - the predictive and eudaimonic power of Stoicism is there for anyone to pluck if they have the impulse to reach for it and the courage to do the hard work of applying and reforming the self, along with the philosophy. That said, it's awesome, you all should check it out.

ed312 6y ago
> outdated in its approach to inter-community relations, approaching social contracts in the context of small, warlike city states (and later in the context of an authoritarian, imperialistic empire). Is that actually outdated? There are fewer "entire community mobilized against existential threat" type wars these days, but there seems to be a constant brew of conflict world wide (proxy wars, drone strikes, etc). Frankly, I find Stoicism one of the best ways to cope with the two quotes I keep hearing in my mind: "high school never ends" and "war never changes". Finally - We're just on the very tip of the cusp of the effects of climate change. Entire regions supported by subsistence farming for millennia will within a lifetime become a literal hell. As we go from a world of seemingly endless abundance to constrained resources (arable land, potable water, etc.) I think "war like city states" more closely represents our future than anyone really wants to accept.

bumby 6y ago

Nancy Sherman has written about how to balance Stoicism with modern life. In particular, with the idea of a stoic lack of emotion: "But the very numbness that can be so adaptive to survival, can also erect walls that stand in the way of human attachment and trust. I am all for Stoic teachings of empowerment of agency. But we are, as Marcus Aurelius knew well, citizens of the universe, attached to each other, and deeply affected by the social worlds and practices and institutions of which we are a part. To forget our membership and responsibilities in the social world and how that affects our life chances is to forget who we are."[1] I am by no means well-versed in Stoicism, just have found much of it useful personally. Sherman has done the best job I can find of speaking to striking a balance between stoic detachment but still maintaining the emotional connections that bond us as humans. [1]https://dailystoic.com/nancy-sherman/ https://dailystoic.com/nancy-sherman/

spacemark 6y ago
>striking a balance between stoic detachment but still maintaining the emotional connections that bond us as humans. This isn't new to Sherman, she is just reforming for our modern times similar arguments made by the ancients. None of the ancient Stoics endorsed unfeeling detachment. They endorsed detachment from things not in our control, but they rejected the Cynic school's conclusion that living according to nature meant asceticism. To the contrary, to ancient Stoics civil action and involvement was a duty, and enjoying our emotions to the fullest was the very reward eudaimonia promised.
- bumby 6y ago
  I agree. To the articles point, the (little "s") stoicism is conflated with the philosophy and sometimes misinterpreted in this regard. I've just personally found her writings more accessible for addressing the original texts on this point.
jasperry 6y ago
I'm also not a scholar of stoicism, but from my reading Epictetus teaches pretty plainly that you shouldn't care at all about anything you can't control. I don't think that's realistic. Though of course it's good to focus our efforts on what we have hope of changing, I think the Stoics miss the importance of actively seeking out ways that we can make things better for ourselves and others. They instead cast everything as "duty" in conformance to "nature", two very slippery concepts. Scholars have noted that Stoicism flourished in environments where people had to cope with severe disempowerment (such as being caught up in the politics of the Roman Empire.) I hope most of us are not in situations where we have to resort to the 100% stoic mindset.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago

Joy/Stoicism - isn't that an oxymoron? Edit: instead of hitting the downvote perhaps someone could have done a little explanation, or pointed me in the right direction. The wiki page corrects my misapprehension, which is more than anyone else has done here, to wit Ancient stoics are often misunderstood because the terms they used pertained to different concepts than today. The word "stoic" has since come to mean "unemotional"

devilduck 6y ago
Many people on HN love to pretend they are highly intelligent and purely rational but then have no problem downvoting emotional content. Silly!
TacoSteemers 6y ago
Did you mean to ask if they are a contradiction in terms? I'm not an expert, but would say that they are not. As far as I can tell the modern word 'stoic' does not give a good idea of what Stoicism is about. In regards to feelings, I believe the idea behind Stoicism is happiness can be found as a result of not letting ourselves suffer from 'unreasonable' thoughts. To quote wikipedia: "... the Stoics held that unhappiness and evil are the results of human ignorance of the reason in nature. If someone is unkind, it is because they are unaware of their own universal reason, which leads to the conclusion of unkindness. The solution to evil and unhappiness then is the practice of Stoic philosophy: to examine one's own judgments and behavior and determine where they diverge from the universal reason of nature." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism#Ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism#Ethics
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  Indeed an apparent contradiction. Just my misunderstanding. Thanks.
spacemark 6y ago
Just a thought, the downvotes may be because your comment read like you wanted someone to read you the first google search result. ;) I could be way off though.

sn41 6y ago

I have found that adopting stoic principles actually reduces my motivation to do anything. I think stoicism lacks the emotional content and passion that causes us to attempt great things. Of course, there may be grief and disappointment, but being detached at the outset seems to rob me of some of the impetus and grit required.

spacemark 6y ago
What are these Stoic principles you refer to? Because the only good in Stoicism is virtue, which obligates us to do the greatest things possible within our power.
inscionent 6y ago
Being Stoic does not require one to give up ambitions, self improvement or planning. It only requires that you stay open to the good and guard against the bad. “Accept the things to which fate binds you, and love the people with whom fate brings you together, but do so with all your heart.” ~ Aurelius "Our life is what our thoughts make of it." ~ Aurelius "It's a rough road that leads to the heights of greatness." ~ Seneca
shakna 6y ago
Passion to enjoy life is a founding principle of stoicism. Whilst there is a lot of thought around letting go of stress, and emotions that might be viewed as negative, there's a lot about seeking out enjoyment and pleasure as well. The "no passion" often seems to come across as a translation issue. > Never to give the impression of anger or any other passion, but to combine complete freedom of passion with the greatest of human affection. - Aurelius The greatest of human affection, the love of one another, is clearly not passionless, as we understand it. We're supposed to get excited about family, about love, about truth and justice, according to other parts of the Meditations. Life isn't meant to be empty and disconnected. Its just about choosing things that are worth getting excited about.
contravariant 6y ago
I suppose I could argue here that you may have misunderstood stoicism, but the funny thing about stoicism is that it's kind of pointless to argue back and forth about what makes one a stoic. A true stoic wouldn't care if they were stoic, they'd simply be. > Put an end once for all to this discussion of what a good man should be, and be one.

devilduck 6y ago

It's pretty narrow to believe that one can just "become stoic" but I certainly appreciate the notions of stoicism.

throwaway1492 6y ago

Edit got it thanks for clarifying.

redwoolf 6y ago
This isn't Stoicism. There's no eudaimonia in that way of life which is a fundamental part of Stoicism.
miketery 6y ago
Not sure if joking or a troll, either way that's certainly not what stoicism is. Stoicism is about the fact that when anything happens there is the physical cost (car breaking, getting sick with the flu, getting a divorce), and an emotional cost (getting angry, dwelling on it, disconnecting from reality). Stoicism says you can control the latter and improve your life as a result. Probably the best way to manage it, is to be objective about your reality. And then there are other tools, like reframing, taking setbacks as challenges to improve and become more resilient, and many more. End of the day, we're tiny ants on this space rock, enjoy it, and take it as it comes.
namero999 6y ago
Together with Schopenhauer being considered a "pessimist", this is a recurring misconception. Not sure where you discovered that something like you described is stoicism, but it surely doesn't fit. "I'll pretend this person doesn't exist" is probably closer to a mild form of depression than to one of stoicism's main tenets, i.e., focus on what you can control, don't let yourself being derailed by negative emotions arising from facts outside of your agency. edit: typo

cambalache 6y ago

A little ironic that the author, who is a person who has done a lot to popularize Stoicism (at least his take on it) is a man whose public behavior I would never associate with that term.This also applies to other stoicism popular writers like Tucker Max, Ryan Holiday and Tim Ferris. It reminds me of a research I read some years ago about how ethics professors were in average not more ethical than the average person.

croissants 6y ago
Tucker Max is a stoicism popular writer? The guy who wrote American Pie-type stories on the internet in the 2000s?
- paulpauper 6y ago
  no, he confused him for Ryan Holliday

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago

draw_down 6y ago

> Edith Hall, a King’s College, London, classics scholar, wrote: “Authentic ancient Stoicism was pessimistic and grim. It denounced pleasure....” And she is not alone. There is a cottage industry of papers on stoicism in psychology, built on the same stereotype. Sure, maybe the classics scholar is an ingoramus trafficking in dumb stereotypes. Or maybe they've thought about it as much as you have, and arrived at a different conclusion. And who the hell said anything about psychology?!

1experience 6y ago

I have realized that stoic philosophy gives me a peaceful/powerful feeling in the immediate while giving me little help in my critical situations. Marco Aurelio's meditations came from his life, each of his thoughts was connected to an often painful mistake/experience and was meant for his future self. It isn't easy to transfer this behavioral wisdom from one person to another just through writing. Abstract thinkings without a strong connection to your own reality (experiences) often don't produce a strong enough effect to apply them in your own difficult situations. In the dialogue, Socrates recounts the story of the god Theuth, or Ammon, who offers the king Thamus the gift of letters: This, said Theuth, will make the Egyptians wiser and give them better memories; it is a specific both for the memory and for the wit. Thamus replied: O most ingenious Theuth, the parent or inventor of an art is not always the best judge of the utility or inutility of his own inventions to the users of them. And in this instance, you who are the father of letters, from a paternal love of your own children have been led to attribute to them a quality which they cannot have; for this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality. (Phaedrus, Plato)

bcatanzaro 6y ago

I stopped reading as soon as the article said anger is an unhealthy emotion. That is such a damaging idea. Anger can be unhealthy, but so can many other emotions including shame (which is often the alternative to anger). Anger can also be healthy - it is a signal from deep within that something in our environment must change. Anger is often the catalyst for making necessary change. Now of course too much anger is damaging, no question. But the dose makes the poison. A little anger at the right time can be transformative and it can be super healthy.

1experience 6y ago
All emotions are theoretically beneficial to oneself (survive and reproduce), otherwise they would not have evolved and would not have persisted during evolution.
richardbrevig 6y ago
You may enjoy Plutchik's dyadic wheel of emotions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_connection#/media/File:Plutchik_Dyads.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_connection#/media/File:... In it, he lists anger as the opposite of fear. And shame is the combination of fear and disgust (the opposite of trust).
CarelessExpert 6y ago
> I stopped reading as soon as the article said anger is an unhealthy emotion. Anger not turned to constructive action is an unhealthy emotion. Unfortunately, that kind of nuance isn't gonna get captured in an intro to Stoicism blog post. Stoicism teaches that, in those moments where you feel that flash of anger, pause and ask yourself: what in this situation can I do that's in my control that can lead to a constructive outcome? If the answer is absolutely nothing, then the goal is to recognize that and let that anger subside because it's fruitless and harmful. This is the essence of the dichotomy of control: if you can't control something, then getting worked up about it only harms yourself. But it's very rare that we have absolutely no control in a situation, and in those cases where we have some measure of control, Stoicism as a philosophy challenges us to find the constructive action that lets us turn that challenge into an opportunity while allowing us to replace that anger with a sense of constructive purpose. And in fact choosing acceptance is an action itself, and therefore such situations become opportunities for personal growth that hopefully leads us to becoming a more kind, patient, humane individual. Anyway, that's not to say that Stoicism is a cure-all or that it's good for everyone. Maybe for you it's the wrong choice! But your comment is a perfect example of how people continuously misunderstand Stoic thought and then disregard it out of hand, which is precisely what this article is all about.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago

the joys of being a stoic makes me think of the sexual conquests of a celibate.

st1x7 6y ago

My impressions from reading about stoicism have been - all of this is pretty obvious stuff, why all the books and discussions - it's weird to identify yourself with in ideology and call yourself "a stoic" I really don't get the hype about it.

pmoriarty 6y ago
What specifically did you find so obvious?
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  Profound insights often seem obvious when stated.
  - pmoriarty 6y ago
    That's not specific.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
lordleft 6y ago
As a practitioner of Stoicism, some people do seem to naturally jive with this philosophy. It might seem obvious to you because your inner life is in alignment with what it is arguing. That being said, lots of people struggle to "get" Stoicism, because they grew up believing that happiness and worth reside in something they can't fully control. For many people, it is not remotely obvious that your life is valuable if you're not rich, or handsome, or successful. It's also important to understand that Stoicism is a serious, well-argued philosophy comprised of arguments that dialogue or disagree with rival philosophical schools, like Epicureanism or Aristotelian philosophy. It contains many arguments that I feel are decidedly not obvious: * Virtue is the only good * Happiness resides in only what we fully control (our response to external circumstances), and not in things that are outside our control, or partially under the influences of things outside our control * Wisdom (the ability to exercise reason to make the wisest choices) is the most valuable faculty * We are fundamentally cosmopolitan, and see ourselves as part of a broadly human polis, instead of seeing ourselves as only Athenian, American, Indian, etc * We must act for the social good, even though we are not guaranteed success (i.e. Stoicism is NOT quietism; this particular claim puts Stoicism against the Epicureans) In fact, many people would find the fundamental framing of Stoic ethics dubious. If you're a deontologist, you'll be irritated that Stoicism often doesn't give an exact answer to a particular ethical question -- it instead emphasizes crafting a good character, and deducing the right response from what a good person would do, given the circumstances. Surely you'd want an exact answer that obtains in all situations -- none of this wishy washy virtue ethics stuff.

paulpauper 6y ago

>If there is nothing you can do about a particular situation, why beat yourself up about it? because people who have a stake in things going a certain way, would prefer it to go that way. Otherwise why bother trying if you have no control over the outcome. If we're all going to die, which is h ultimate and final fate of everyone, why do anything? The problem with stoicism is it is kinda a dead end and it creates unrealistic expectations. Ideally, people would not worry so much about things outside of their control, but that is not how people work. Much of modern scientific progress hinges on people trying to control their environment, such as treating disease. Should we just give up on that.

lordleft 6y ago
You try because there's a chance of getting the outcome you want, but you don't tether your happiness to that outcome. You accept the limited control you have -- this is how Stoics reconcile the pursuit of mental imperturbation with the pursuit of outcomes. To Quote Cicero, remaking on the Stoics: “If a man were to make it his purpose to take a true aim with a spear or arrow at some mark, his ultimate end, corresponding to the ultimate good as we pronounce it, would be to do all he could to aim straight … whereas the actual hitting of the mark would be in our phrase ‘to be chosen’ but not ‘to be desired.'” So a Stoic might try to effectuate a particular outcome in, say, her political life -- choosing actions that align with the outcome, but does not "desire" it -- meaning her self-worth and happiness is tightly bound with whether she gets it or not. It's a fair thing to ask how psychologically tenable this is. Some people may struggle with this kind of framing. I personally have found it liberating.

lordleft 6y ago

I am a patron of the writer of this article. He's a fascinating dude, having practiced as a evolutionary biologist for years before pivoting to philosophy. His patreon: https://www.patreon.com/MassimoPigliucci https://www.patreon.com/MassimoPigliucci His free blog, which is now deprecated (but has a ton of existing content): https://howtobeastoic.wordpress.com/ https://howtobeastoic.wordpress.com/

magwa101 6y ago

Stoics were only in the upper classes of greece.

aitchnyu 6y ago

Tangential, but what are the improvements to daily life caused by Stoics? The usual claims are human rights improvements and CBT, the therapy with the highest success rates.

starpilot 6y ago

This is a mandatory component of the hustle: https://youtu.be/_o7qjN3KF8U https://youtu.be/_o7qjN3KF8U

stakkur 6y ago

I don't think the writer who won the award was speaking about Stoicism, but rather stoicism. 'stoic' is part of our popular vocabuluary, but I doubt that most people saying it are referring to the set of principles and writings that we think of as Stoicism.

RhodoYolo 6y ago

No one talks about the fact that one of the biggest stoics, Marcus Aurelius was a terrible emperor the roman empire. He settled the goths inside roman land with a forced migration - which didn't turn out too well not too long later. Teleological thinking is built into Stoicism that is the kink in it's armour. He 'taught' you how to live a good life, in a journal that was 'his personal journal, not meant for publication'. It clearly reads like it was meant to be published and his son turned out to be commodes, easily top 5 worst emporers of all time.

ssivark 6y ago
FYI, “chink” in the armor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chink_in_one%27s_armor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chink_in_one%27s_armor
mstipetic 6y ago
How does it "clearly read like it was meant to be published?"
- RhodoYolo 6y ago
  Well - Maybe there was some light editing done. But to keep it so unpersonal is personally amazing to me if you thought no one was ever going to see it.
phist_mcgee 6y ago
Sounds like you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I don't read into Marcus Aurelius' personal achievements as a vindication of stoicism, and nor do I care if his diary was for public consumption. His musings and messages are much more important to me. That's like criticising Jesus because he was betrayed by one of his disciples.
- RhodoYolo 6y ago
  This is fair. My personal philosophy is to imitate success. Marcus was born to the purple so it makes sense to limit and find balance in the stoics before him. True stoics have this 'lack of free will' twinge to them, where bad things happening is a way of life and you have to just roll with the punches. Let's look at another Stoic and his accomplishments, seneca. He was exiled, came back and tutored Nero (Another crazy emperor) and ended up killing himself. Why is Stoicism held to such a high standard when it's examples are so poor. It seems to turn people into this laconic acceptance instead of having fun and doing stupid shit for the sake of it.

herdcall 6y ago

Trouble is that we can't always tell what's in our control and what isn't. Who would've thought a thousand years ago that we could fly to the moon? I'm reminded here of the beautiful quote by Bernard Shaw: "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
That requires a very specific understanding of progress. It requires that you take the position that the world is an imperfect place for humans to live, and that there are adaptations which make it better. Although this isn't unlikely, it's also not self-evidently true.
- herdcall 6y ago
  True, but we (humans) are always aspiring to be better, even if things aren't broken per se. My point was that we don't always know what we can't do, so when do we stop trying? Then there's the fallacy of composition. Each of us may be powerless as individuals to make a change, like political or social reform, but collectively we often can.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    > we (humans) are always aspiring to be better, Various religious, spiritual and even political belief systems through time and space take a different position on this. Buddhism in particular encourages an acceptance of the world as it-is (while also encourages small acts within that world to reduce suffering). There are many religious systems in which one becomes better only as a spiritual, inward matter, not by changing the world.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tonyedgecombe 6y ago
Doesn't that assume that changing the world is the only route worth pursuing. I seem to remember Elon Musk saying that people shouldn't aspire to be like him because it wouldn't be a good life for most people. Some people are wired for that sort of thing, I know I'm not.

glouwbug 6y ago

Anyone read the manga Berserk? The protagonist Guts is the embodiment of suffering. True stoicism

ruytlm 6y ago

By the same author from 2017: https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/5258/what-the-stoics-did-for-us https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/5258/what-the-stoics-did... Discussed at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15799592 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15799592