4 ms·

Although this article definitely some weird "modern academic" aspects, overall I feel like many of the commenters here are being uncharitable towards the author

Although this article definitely some weird "modern academic" aspects, overall I feel like many of the commenters here are being uncharitable towards the author. Epictetus is by far my favourite of the Stoics I've read. The Enchiridion is short, acerbic, enlightening and funny. You don't get that much in philosophy, and I think that author clearly appreciates that. That said, in the end I think Nietzsche is right in his criticism: Stoicism works, but it limits one's capacity for joy because to tools you use to combat negative emotion unintentionally, but necessarily, limit positive emotion. I practiced Stoicism pretty seriously for a few years and it definitely improved my life, but once you've used it to build a solid emotional foundation, the Stoic tactics (which essentially involve always watching yourself for deviations from the Stoic path) limit your ability to experience extremes of joy. There are elements of Stoicism (like negative visualisation) that are easy to integrate into life and are pretty much only positive, but for me, full-blown Stoicism is something I only bring out when I need to re-establish that solid baseline.

elliotwagner 3y ago
could you share some of the books that helped you?
- RamblingCTO 3y ago
  Not the commenter, but you can read Epictetus directly, very easy. Otherwise How to Be a Stoic by Massimo Pigliucci. Don't read any of that garbage from Ryan Holiday.
  - marginalia_nu 3y ago
    Yeah. I too recommend it. Discourses is a very pleasant read. Epictetus comes off a bit as the "Dr House" of philosophy. He has a very unique tone.
- JenrHywy 3y ago
  If you're interested in Stoicism, one of the benefits is that you can read (translations of) the actual Roman Stoics. I think the main thing is to find an author the meshes with you. A lot of people love Seneca, but I found him too long-winded and self-important (a bit like Polonious in Hamlet; where the advice may be solid by the delivery distracts from it). My favourite by far is Epictetus. This site[0] has many translations of The Enchiridion side-by-side. I'd read a few of the options, find the one you like and just read that (personally I like Carter, and sometimes Long). It's short - 53 sections which are mostly a paragraph or two. You can knock it over in a few hours. I don't know if this is "optimal", but the approach I took was to read it all through fairly quickly, then re-read one section a day (or so) trying to really understand it. Marcus Aurelius' Meditations is also quite readable if you find a translation you like. It's interesting to read the diary of an emperor as he tried to apply Stoicism to his life, but it didn't teach me anything that I didn't get from The Enchiridion. If you want to ease in with a modern take, I think William Irvine's A Guide to the Good Life is decent, though he makes the mistake of adding his own more complex, and unnecessary concepts on top. 0: https://enchiridion.tasuki.org/ https://enchiridion.tasuki.org/
zozbot234 3y ago
This whole idea that Stoicism involves combating or eradicating all emotions is pretty much a caricature. The Stoic approach is closer to withdrawing one's assent to excessive or inappropriate emotions, and thus not letting them turn into harmful "passions". In Stoic philosophy, a "passion" by definition involves some sort of (perhaps implied) assent, and some subsequent action (such as weeping in distress, or withdrawing in fear); in a way, the notion is comparable to what we might also call an impulse, or a drive.
- JenrHywy 3y ago
  You'll notice that that's not what I (or Nietzsche) said. I agree that Stoicism isn't about eliminating emotions, but it is about not letting them overtake our rationality. My contention is that to experience the deepest and most profound emotions requires you to submit to them, and Stoicism (very intentionally) prevents that.
  - zozbot234 3y ago
    The Stoic notion of rationality is perhaps a bit counterintuitive. As Stoics see it, everything in our minds is "rational" as-is, including our deepest emotions. The relevant issue when deciding whether to assent or not to some emotion and its development into a passion is whether it comports with our nature and with virtue. Of course, the modern notion of rationality in its abstract logical sense has zilch to do with this - Stoics are nowhere close to aspiring Vulcans! (This is most easily contrasted with Plato's account, in which the adult mind does have non-rational parts - the "appetite", which is inherently in need of control and restraint, and the "spirit" which like the appetite is not per se rational but it is aligned with reason and against the appetite.)
    - JenrHywy 3y ago
      Perhaps we've just read different Stoics. I think it's clear from many scenarios in The Enchiridion that the aim is to not become fully emersed in emotion. Some examples that spring to mind: - going to sporting events to be socially acceptable, but not allowing yourself to care about the outcome - comforting a woman on the death of her child, and making the outward appearance of sympathy, not not actually sinking into sadness I can't think of a single example of any of the Stoics I've read recommending becoming overwhelmed by emotion or experience.

elliotwagner 3y ago

could you share some of the books that helped you?

RamblingCTO 3y ago
Not the commenter, but you can read Epictetus directly, very easy. Otherwise How to Be a Stoic by Massimo Pigliucci. Don't read any of that garbage from Ryan Holiday.
- marginalia_nu 3y ago
  Yeah. I too recommend it. Discourses is a very pleasant read. Epictetus comes off a bit as the "Dr House" of philosophy. He has a very unique tone.
JenrHywy 3y ago
If you're interested in Stoicism, one of the benefits is that you can read (translations of) the actual Roman Stoics. I think the main thing is to find an author the meshes with you. A lot of people love Seneca, but I found him too long-winded and self-important (a bit like Polonious in Hamlet; where the advice may be solid by the delivery distracts from it). My favourite by far is Epictetus. This site[0] has many translations of The Enchiridion side-by-side. I'd read a few of the options, find the one you like and just read that (personally I like Carter, and sometimes Long). It's short - 53 sections which are mostly a paragraph or two. You can knock it over in a few hours. I don't know if this is "optimal", but the approach I took was to read it all through fairly quickly, then re-read one section a day (or so) trying to really understand it. Marcus Aurelius' Meditations is also quite readable if you find a translation you like. It's interesting to read the diary of an emperor as he tried to apply Stoicism to his life, but it didn't teach me anything that I didn't get from The Enchiridion. If you want to ease in with a modern take, I think William Irvine's A Guide to the Good Life is decent, though he makes the mistake of adding his own more complex, and unnecessary concepts on top. 0: https://enchiridion.tasuki.org/ https://enchiridion.tasuki.org/

zozbot234 3y ago

This whole idea that Stoicism involves combating or eradicating all emotions is pretty much a caricature. The Stoic approach is closer to withdrawing one's assent to excessive or inappropriate emotions, and thus not letting them turn into harmful "passions". In Stoic philosophy, a "passion" by definition involves some sort of (perhaps implied) assent, and some subsequent action (such as weeping in distress, or withdrawing in fear); in a way, the notion is comparable to what we might also call an impulse, or a drive.

JenrHywy 3y ago
You'll notice that that's not what I (or Nietzsche) said. I agree that Stoicism isn't about eliminating emotions, but it is about not letting them overtake our rationality. My contention is that to experience the deepest and most profound emotions requires you to submit to them, and Stoicism (very intentionally) prevents that.
- zozbot234 3y ago
  The Stoic notion of rationality is perhaps a bit counterintuitive. As Stoics see it, everything in our minds is "rational" as-is, including our deepest emotions. The relevant issue when deciding whether to assent or not to some emotion and its development into a passion is whether it comports with our nature and with virtue. Of course, the modern notion of rationality in its abstract logical sense has zilch to do with this - Stoics are nowhere close to aspiring Vulcans! (This is most easily contrasted with Plato's account, in which the adult mind does have non-rational parts - the "appetite", which is inherently in need of control and restraint, and the "spirit" which like the appetite is not per se rational but it is aligned with reason and against the appetite.)
  - JenrHywy 3y ago
    Perhaps we've just read different Stoics. I think it's clear from many scenarios in The Enchiridion that the aim is to not become fully emersed in emotion. Some examples that spring to mind: - going to sporting events to be socially acceptable, but not allowing yourself to care about the outcome - comforting a woman on the death of her child, and making the outward appearance of sympathy, not not actually sinking into sadness I can't think of a single example of any of the Stoics I've read recommending becoming overwhelmed by emotion or experience.