4 ms·

I have a question- why does Stoicism get this much attention in the digital space, as compared to other schools? I found Epicureanism, Existentialism (esp. Nie

by rg111 3y ago

I have a question- why does Stoicism get this much attention in the digital space, as compared to other schools? I found Epicureanism, Existentialism (esp. Nietzsche, Heidegger, Camus NOT Sartre), and the writing of Montaigne to be much more relevant in this day and age. Why is Stoicism disproportionately famous? Is it because of Aurelius's Meditations? Writings of a Roman Emperor that every average Joe can confidently think that they understand? Any other reasons?

robnado 3y ago
In a world that has gone so far in the direction of hedonism, the opposite message is a centring force that helps people find balance in their lives. As one of my coworkers used to say “always choose the middle way”. I’m honestly more surprised that people aren’t talking enthusiastically about asceticism to be honest.
- rg111 3y ago
  Who is living in all this hedonism? Every person like me (white collar middle/upper-middle class) is extemely aware of their health, regulates choice of food severely, lives a disciplined life. Every poor person I know works two shifts or has a secondary occupation to make ends meet, and is one medical emergency away from bankruptcy. Now, I have known few uber-rich who live in hedonistic ways, but the number is extremely small. All of us are living an extremely self-regulated lives. Where are all the hedonistic people I keep hearing about? I am seriously asking.
  - yungporko 3y ago
    i'm not being hyperbolic when i say that i genuinely don't know a single person in real life whose life isn't entirely governed by the search for instant pleasure/gratification.
  - _kulang 3y ago
    Remember than hedonism is not necessarily about all of those rich pleasures. It’s a philosophy. And you are most likely surrounded by people like yourself, so you probably can’t see it. I see plenty of regular people who are driven by feeling good almost entirely
natroniks 3y ago
I've thought about this and read/listened to some insightful philosophers and classicists consider this very question. The most convincing rationale I've heard comes from the most eloquent, the most learned, most excellent Nathan Dufour Oglesby (https://www.youtube.com/c/NATHANOLOGY https://www.youtube.com/c/NATHANOLOGY) He summarizes classical Stoicism in his catchy tune "Be a Stoic": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWuLvsB7UmE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWuLvsB7UmE He also spoke recently about classical Stoicism's cosmic paradigm of a living universe: https://www.facebook.com/reel/335961102098589 https://www.facebook.com/reel/335961102098589 It's this last point that provides the basis, I think, for Stoicism's sort of renaissance. I say sort of because, as with the Bible, today's constituents often focus on only certain pieces of Stoicism. But it is rooted in this idea that just as various cells all function towards the same purpose of supporting our bodies, so all creatures are part of an interconnected, living universe. This conception leads to the idea that everyone, every station of living being just as with every cell in our body, is in service to a grander scheme. And once more this grander scheme can be used to excuse all sorts of unhelpful acts - so long as they are in pursuit of a greater good. I myself prefer Epicureanism (there's a catchy tune for that, too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hrit65ZSeM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hrit65ZSeM). Unlike Epicureanism - true atheists - Stoicism had its own theological system, a cosmology bound up in the belief in a cosmic force, a fire they called numa/Dios/physos. Modern Stoicism focuses on 2 of 3 categories within Stoicism - ethics and logic. The third field is Physics, under which is included a theological and teleological system that provides a universal context entirely foreign to the teachings espoused by so many today. Here's a podcast I just stumbled upon that does a good job of detailing the critical role the divine force plays in the universe: https://traditionalstoicism.com/the-religious-nature-of-stoicism-episode-15/ https://traditionalstoicism.com/the-religious-nature-of-stoi... Lastly, the interviews in this podcast with Donald Robertson (Stoic) and John Vervaeke (Neo-Platonist) are really, really illuminating and Vervaeke's in particular addresses your precise question: why is stoicism going viral? https://www.greecepodcast.com/when-a-philosopher-ruled-the-world/ https://www.greecepodcast.com/when-a-philosopher-ruled-the-w... https://www.greecepodcast.com/why-platonism-stoicism-are-going-viral/ https://www.greecepodcast.com/why-platonism-stoicism-are-goi...
yungporko 3y ago
every average joe can absolutely understand and take value from marcus aurelius, as well as epictetus and seneca. none of it is specific to being an emperor or even being a roman.
- rg111 3y ago
  I have read Meditations as a teenager and later in life when I was smarter, more mature, and responsible, and with some background in Philosophy, the book hit completely differently. I recognized many of my early interpretation as lacking depth or true understanding. And I see so many people not much different from their YA self. Not all people grow significantly. This leads me to believe that many people have an understanding of Meditations that is lacking.

by rg111 3y ago

robnado 3y ago

In a world that has gone so far in the direction of hedonism, the opposite message is a centring force that helps people find balance in their lives. As one of my coworkers used to say “always choose the middle way”. I’m honestly more surprised that people aren’t talking enthusiastically about asceticism to be honest.

rg111 3y ago
Who is living in all this hedonism? Every person like me (white collar middle/upper-middle class) is extemely aware of their health, regulates choice of food severely, lives a disciplined life. Every poor person I know works two shifts or has a secondary occupation to make ends meet, and is one medical emergency away from bankruptcy. Now, I have known few uber-rich who live in hedonistic ways, but the number is extremely small. All of us are living an extremely self-regulated lives. Where are all the hedonistic people I keep hearing about? I am seriously asking.
- yungporko 3y ago
  i'm not being hyperbolic when i say that i genuinely don't know a single person in real life whose life isn't entirely governed by the search for instant pleasure/gratification.
- _kulang 3y ago
  Remember than hedonism is not necessarily about all of those rich pleasures. It’s a philosophy. And you are most likely surrounded by people like yourself, so you probably can’t see it. I see plenty of regular people who are driven by feeling good almost entirely

natroniks 3y ago

I've thought about this and read/listened to some insightful philosophers and classicists consider this very question. The most convincing rationale I've heard comes from the most eloquent, the most learned, most excellent Nathan Dufour Oglesby (https://www.youtube.com/c/NATHANOLOGY https://www.youtube.com/c/NATHANOLOGY) He summarizes classical Stoicism in his catchy tune "Be a Stoic": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWuLvsB7UmE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWuLvsB7UmE He also spoke recently about classical Stoicism's cosmic paradigm of a living universe: https://www.facebook.com/reel/335961102098589 https://www.facebook.com/reel/335961102098589 It's this last point that provides the basis, I think, for Stoicism's sort of renaissance. I say sort of because, as with the Bible, today's constituents often focus on only certain pieces of Stoicism. But it is rooted in this idea that just as various cells all function towards the same purpose of supporting our bodies, so all creatures are part of an interconnected, living universe. This conception leads to the idea that everyone, every station of living being just as with every cell in our body, is in service to a grander scheme. And once more this grander scheme can be used to excuse all sorts of unhelpful acts - so long as they are in pursuit of a greater good. I myself prefer Epicureanism (there's a catchy tune for that, too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hrit65ZSeM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hrit65ZSeM). Unlike Epicureanism - true atheists - Stoicism had its own theological system, a cosmology bound up in the belief in a cosmic force, a fire they called numa/Dios/physos. Modern Stoicism focuses on 2 of 3 categories within Stoicism - ethics and logic. The third field is Physics, under which is included a theological and teleological system that provides a universal context entirely foreign to the teachings espoused by so many today. Here's a podcast I just stumbled upon that does a good job of detailing the critical role the divine force plays in the universe: https://traditionalstoicism.com/the-religious-nature-of-stoicism-episode-15/ https://traditionalstoicism.com/the-religious-nature-of-stoi... Lastly, the interviews in this podcast with Donald Robertson (Stoic) and John Vervaeke (Neo-Platonist) are really, really illuminating and Vervaeke's in particular addresses your precise question: why is stoicism going viral? https://www.greecepodcast.com/when-a-philosopher-ruled-the-world/ https://www.greecepodcast.com/when-a-philosopher-ruled-the-w... https://www.greecepodcast.com/why-platonism-stoicism-are-going-viral/ https://www.greecepodcast.com/why-platonism-stoicism-are-goi...

yungporko 3y ago

every average joe can absolutely understand and take value from marcus aurelius, as well as epictetus and seneca. none of it is specific to being an emperor or even being a roman.

rg111 3y ago
I have read Meditations as a teenager and later in life when I was smarter, more mature, and responsible, and with some background in Philosophy, the book hit completely differently. I recognized many of my early interpretation as lacking depth or true understanding. And I see so many people not much different from their YA self. Not all people grow significantly. This leads me to believe that many people have an understanding of Meditations that is lacking.