3 ms·

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 reminde

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.
uh-quan 6y ago
That isn't quite what Epictetus means by what's under our control. Back then one could generally travel from one end of the Roman Empire to the other (e.g., from England to Persia) safely, on well-built and -guarded roads, needing knowledge of but one language and possession of but one currency — all this despite traveling through a dozen+ diverse cultures and nations on the trip. A few centuries later, and for more than a millennia afterward, that would be impossible. But Epictetus would still categorize the success of such a journey as something out of our control: What if a robber attacks you, in spite of the general safety of the roads? What if you fall off your horse and snap a leg? What if you get sick? What if a storm unexpectedly hits during a sea voyage? Similarly, on a trip to the moon: What if the rocket fails to launch? What if it launches but explodes in the atmosphere? What if your second-stage engine fails to fire? What if, en route to the moon, an electrical malfunction depletes your oxygen reserves to dangerously low levels? Etc. I pick these examples because they've all actually happened, despite our best efforts to the contrary. The moral question Epictetus considers is not, What is it Man (in the abstract) is capable (sometimes) of doing? The question is, what is truly under your control? What is the interior castle into which no one and no thing can invade if you do not permit it to enter? What are the implications of having such an interior fortress, and how might we leverage that control to live happy lives? The answers to those questions have not changed in the thousands of years since Epictetus asked them. Stoicism is a perennial philosophy.

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.

uh-quan 6y ago

That isn't quite what Epictetus means by what's under our control. Back then one could generally travel from one end of the Roman Empire to the other (e.g., from England to Persia) safely, on well-built and -guarded roads, needing knowledge of but one language and possession of but one currency — all this despite traveling through a dozen+ diverse cultures and nations on the trip. A few centuries later, and for more than a millennia afterward, that would be impossible. But Epictetus would still categorize the success of such a journey as something out of our control: What if a robber attacks you, in spite of the general safety of the roads? What if you fall off your horse and snap a leg? What if you get sick? What if a storm unexpectedly hits during a sea voyage? Similarly, on a trip to the moon: What if the rocket fails to launch? What if it launches but explodes in the atmosphere? What if your second-stage engine fails to fire? What if, en route to the moon, an electrical malfunction depletes your oxygen reserves to dangerously low levels? Etc. I pick these examples because they've all actually happened, despite our best efforts to the contrary. The moral question Epictetus considers is not, What is it Man (in the abstract) is capable (sometimes) of doing? The question is, what is truly under your control? What is the interior castle into which no one and no thing can invade if you do not permit it to enter? What are the implications of having such an interior fortress, and how might we leverage that control to live happy lives? The answers to those questions have not changed in the thousands of years since Epictetus asked them. Stoicism is a perennial philosophy.