6 ms·
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 sto
by 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 agoNietzsche'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 agoI'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 agowhile 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.
- billfruit 6y agoEven Plutarch was a bit lukewarm on the stoics, and so was Montaigne. Everything in moderation, including moderation was what they liked to say on the stoics, I think.
- WJW 6y agoBoth the Stoic and Nietzschean viewpoints are valid, or rather neither is complete. On HN the Nietzschean viewpoint of "Will to Power" is usually more prevalent, entrepreneurialism and "startup hustle mentality" are all about imposing your will on the world to gain power and success. I think that this overabundance of Nietsches standpoint makes the Stoic standpoints stand out more. In contrast, some of the more Stoic forums become somewhat sedate and then a "you can change the world" type of post will contrast much more. (As an example, a lot of FIRE and permaculture forums can be very (maybe overly) Stoic) Both viewpoints have merit but it depends on the circumstances of the person reading it which has more value for their particular situation.
- batmenace 6y agoWhich are the 'more Stoic' forums, out of curiosity?
- musingsole 6y agoLessWrong comes to mind
- WJW 6y agoCheck out https://forum.earlyretirementextreme.com/index.php https://forum.earlyretirementextreme.com/index.php for example.
- dynamite-ready 6y agoEarly retirement? That's more in line with Epicureanism, not Stoicism?
- WJW 6y agoI don't think early retirement is at odds with Stoicism, certainly not if its method includes a large amount of introspection about what you actually want and why. Read the forums first and then come back to say if they are Stoic or not. Especially the Lifestyle and Inspiration subforums, :) In any case the request was for "more Stoic-oriented" forums, not necessarily "the most Stoic" forum.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- allie1 6y agoLook up Reformed Stoicism
- musingsole 6y agoWhy?
- allie1 6y agoAdapted to today’s life basically. Seneca’s work doesn’t need it as far as I’ve read, but some of the other texts could use that
- morelisp 6y agoHN is the perfect intersection of Nietzschean and Stoic thought. "I am a universe unto myself, a digital nomad above culture and bias, rationally projecting my will out into the world. My success is mine alone and my failures are because the world does not understand me. You are emotionally-driven, ideologically blinded, and all your failures are due to your inability to simultaneously center yourself and push yourself. (p.s. space colony libertarianism)"
- twerwhhgfdhdd 6y agoThat's it. We can close hacker news now. You generated the most hacker newsy thought of all time. Our work here is done!
- bdowling 6y agoHere, Nietzsche constructs a strawman of a philosophy he disagrees with and then eloquently burns it down. It’s energetic and emotional language, but we shouldn’t conflate that with truth.
- goatinaboat 6y agoHere, Nietzsche constructs a strawman of a philosophy he disagrees with and then eloquently burns it down. It’s energetic and emotional language, but we shouldn’t conflate that with truth "That which convinces is not necessarily true, it is merely convincing" -- Nietzsche
- typenil 6y agoJust read Beyond Good and Evil. It's pretty clear that Nietzsche is either ignorant (less likely) or trolling (more likely). Nietzsche is happy to take the Stoic phrase of "according to nature," but isn't happy to use the Stoic view of nature. Instead, Nietzsche substitutes his own view, pretending as if the perspectives are one and the same. It's hard for me to believe that Nietzsche didn't know enough about Stoicism to understand that he was arguing in bad faith. Despite presumably knowing better, he falls into the same misunderstanding that most novices do about Stoicism - that it somehow glorifies indifference at the cost of purpose, mercy, justice, regard, and so on. "Indifferent" is a dangerous word to use in this context. Here I use it in the contemporary sense of "apathy." But it's important to note that "indifference" to a Stoic is more subtle - meaning neither good nor evil (or - dare I say - beyond good and evil), but not implying actual apathy. Stoics did not view nature in this way. Most notable Stoics believed in Zeus - and consequentially in intelligent design. They held reverence not for an empty, random, and nihilistic nature, but for one of purpose, order, and beauty. It's clear by observing the life of any notable Stoic that they valued the same qualities Nietzsche accuses them of disavowing. Pairing Nietzsche's criticisms alongside the very first book in Marcus Aurelius' Meditations: Are Stoics really "profligate" (wildly extravagant/shamelessly immoral)? > From my grandfather Verus I learned good morals... From my mother... simplicity in my way of living, far removed from the habits of the rich. Are Stoics really "without purpose and regard"? > From Apollonius I learned... undeviating steadiness of purpose Are Stoics really "indifferent without measure" or "without mercy and justice"? > From my brother Severus, to love my kin, and to love truth, and to love justice... a polity administered with regard to equal rights and equal freedom of speech, and the idea of a kingly government which respects most of all the freedom of the governed Indeed, Nietzsche is so far off the mark that he would have benefited from observing the same virtues that Marcus enumerates: > From Rusticus I received the impression... to abstain from rhetoric... and to read carefully, and not to be satisfied with a superficial understanding of a book Nietzsche was content to have a superficial understanding of Stoicism - or at least was content to mischaracterize it. The Stoics have much to say of their view of nature - and much of it I discard without the intelligent design component. But that doesn't change that Nietzsche cannot honestly substitute his view of nature for the Stoics and fairly criticize them for the contradictions that arise. Part of the beauty of the Stoic philosophy is that it's far more forgiving than Nietzsche. Marcus also learned from Rusticus: > with respect to those who have offended me by words, or done me wrong, to be easily disposed to be pacified and reconciled, as soon as they have shown a readiness to be reconciled Marcus wouldn't mind Nietzsche's criticisms very much. Edited for formatting
- floatrock 6y agoWhat does Nietzsche mean by big-N Nature? How does Nature fit into Stoic thought? I haven't really read any Stoic philosophy so I don't have the context, and this excerpt seems to attack a word that wasn't covered in the linked article. Or at least it's not clear to me how the ideas discussed in the article fit into this idea of "a being like Nature". Can you give a bit more background?
- ahthat 6y ago‘To live in accordance with nature.’ -Epictetus Nietzsche might actually be misreading the stoics here (is that heretical to say?), or I am not privy to the angle of his attack. The stoic viewpoint is to play your role according to where you find yourself. Suffering is unavoidable. A stoic accepts this fact and does not let it perturb him. An ideal stoic fears neither pain nor death, and goes willingly to death when called. This in my view is what is meant by ‘living in accordance with nature.’ Respect for the bounds of your existence, and not giving into the depression and self pity that can accompany a less than lavish or comfortable existence. Not really a philosophy of ‘raging against the dying of the light.’
- aitchnyu 6y agoThe Stoics were pantheists who believed gods, fate, matter came from Nature, the most ancient goddess. Nature assembles out of the four elements inanimate rocks, souled beings like mice and rational beings, Humans. Humans alone have a ruling center (Hegemonikon) granted by Nature which allows them to freely choose good or evil.
- chrisweekly 6y agoNietzsche gets more than a little carried away here. (And he's attacking a caricature.)