3 ms·

Ultimately, I can't help but think that stoicism has from its very inception been a tool for moving those (and the self) from frustration to acceptance to the a

Ultimately, I can't help but think that stoicism has from its very inception been a tool for moving those (and the self) from frustration to acceptance to the active material support of any given status quo and is more so than every come back into fashion for that very reason now. A westernized version of Buddhism used to preform this function but has fallen out of favor, or proved not as effective, maybe because stoicism can appeal directly to the notions of Western Tradition and Western Canon. I like the lines from the song The Real Folk Blues (translated): I need the pain. My unhappiness proves I'm not insane.

ravi-delia 6y ago
I'd think it's probably more about rediscovering the same thing that many philosophies and traditions have found, that at the end of the day if you can't be happy where you're at you probably won't be happy in a different place either. Humans are on a happiness treadmill, so long as you keep walking you'll, well, keep walking. I'm no stoic myself, but that's because I'm hoping to maintain a little ambition before I settle. Probably I'll go Buddhist when I do.
- MikeSchurman 6y ago
  There are many ambitious and accomplished stoics. Seneca and Marcus Aurelius spring to mind, but there would be more.
  - ravi-delia 6y ago
    Oh certainly, but I'd imagine that their default state was success. Not in the inherited wealth sense (though that's true of Marcus Aurelius), but in the highly competent sense. For me, I know that my dissatisfaction is the thin line between failure and possible success.
megameter 6y ago
Within Stoicism there is a boundary - one which forms a major critique of it - of what one can and cannot control. The thing is, when we speak of status quo acceptance, it lies independently of control. If you are unhappy, but it is within your power to protest, then the Stoic rationale would be to do that, since it is within your control. But likewise if there are things that seem beyond your ability or energy to protest, you still have an inner world which you control, and that is one that you can only be deprived of through your death. In this light the stoic is necessarily against status quo thinking, which would have you subscribe to the thinking of "us versus them" and drown out that inner world with external crisis and reaction to events, rather than proactive change. It's all in where you draw the boundary, and that's where the critique lies: Who's to say how much you really control?
sleepysysadmin 6y ago
If you have watched Social Dilemma or really mental health industry in general. Mental health issues are at the peak, especially in the last 10 years. I've known Massimo Pigliucci or Sam Harris or many other Atheists for a long time; they all tend to be stoics. Atheists who generally would be Christians or Jews otherwise are often Stoics in replacement. This isn't unusual, it's logical. The general increase in Atheism, I believe means Stoicism will take off. I think it needs to take off. If it doesn't take off, there's going to continued increase in mental health.

ravi-delia 6y ago

I'd think it's probably more about rediscovering the same thing that many philosophies and traditions have found, that at the end of the day if you can't be happy where you're at you probably won't be happy in a different place either. Humans are on a happiness treadmill, so long as you keep walking you'll, well, keep walking. I'm no stoic myself, but that's because I'm hoping to maintain a little ambition before I settle. Probably I'll go Buddhist when I do.

MikeSchurman 6y ago
There are many ambitious and accomplished stoics. Seneca and Marcus Aurelius spring to mind, but there would be more.
- ravi-delia 6y ago
  Oh certainly, but I'd imagine that their default state was success. Not in the inherited wealth sense (though that's true of Marcus Aurelius), but in the highly competent sense. For me, I know that my dissatisfaction is the thin line between failure and possible success.

megameter 6y ago

Within Stoicism there is a boundary - one which forms a major critique of it - of what one can and cannot control. The thing is, when we speak of status quo acceptance, it lies independently of control. If you are unhappy, but it is within your power to protest, then the Stoic rationale would be to do that, since it is within your control. But likewise if there are things that seem beyond your ability or energy to protest, you still have an inner world which you control, and that is one that you can only be deprived of through your death. In this light the stoic is necessarily against status quo thinking, which would have you subscribe to the thinking of "us versus them" and drown out that inner world with external crisis and reaction to events, rather than proactive change. It's all in where you draw the boundary, and that's where the critique lies: Who's to say how much you really control?

sleepysysadmin 6y ago

If you have watched Social Dilemma or really mental health industry in general. Mental health issues are at the peak, especially in the last 10 years. I've known Massimo Pigliucci or Sam Harris or many other Atheists for a long time; they all tend to be stoics. Atheists who generally would be Christians or Jews otherwise are often Stoics in replacement. This isn't unusual, it's logical. The general increase in Atheism, I believe means Stoicism will take off. I think it needs to take off. If it doesn't take off, there's going to continued increase in mental health.