5 ms·

Stoicism was a mentality created (popularized) by an emperor and adopted by a people who lived in a cruel and domineering world. Life could be short and mean a

Stoicism was a mentality created (popularized) by an emperor and adopted by a people who lived in a cruel and domineering world. Life could be short and mean and you had to deal with that. To rule Rome you had to be ruthless and deadly, and feel little guilt about it. These days stoicism is rebranded in a way I find very unhealthy. It’s a thinly veiled excuse for self centered sociopathy rather than an embrace of the natural rhythms of the world and what is in and not in your control. It has become either an excuse to give up one’s individuality in a system or to imagine it empowers you in some “sigma” way to conquer it. I wish more people would study it in its context, a philosophy for a cruel and bitter world — something many of us do not live in today.

kwhitefoot 3y ago
> Stoicism was a mentality created by an emperor No it wasn't. Stoicism was centuries old by the time of Aurelius. "Stoicism originated as a Hellenistic philosophy, founded in Athens by Zeno of Citium (modern day Cyprus), c. 300 B.C.E. It was influenced by Socrates and the Cynics, " https://iep.utm.edu/stoicism/ https://iep.utm.edu/stoicism/
- tsunamifury 3y ago
  [flagged]
bugglebeetle 3y ago
It is quite humorous that people have taken up a philosophy premised on resigning to yourself that no better world is possible, when the world devised by its adherents has been overthrown countless times over by people who did not believe that, resulting in the more just and equitable one we now inhabit.
- tsunamifury 3y ago
  This is an excellent point that people seem to constantly ignore. Stoicism, for all its helpful disciplines, has been countered by a reality where changes have taken place by people who dared to think otherwise and hold on to romantic ideals.
  - ochronus 3y ago
    Some would say the 4 stoic virtues are romantic ideals ;)
- bicepjai 3y ago
  Can you provide an example ?
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    Christianity’s impact on the Roman Empire, quite famously and for starters.
    - cjohnson318 3y ago
      Did Christianity usher in a more just and equitable world? After the collapse of the Roman Empire in the 5th century, Europe trudged through the middle ages until the Renaissance in the 15th century.
      - bugglebeetle 3y ago
        Yes, by eroding the archaic notions of heroism and virtue, premised on destruction of the weak and the other. See Rene Girard.
        cjohnson318 3y ago
        I think that millions of non-Christians over the centuries would have a different perspective than Rene Girard.
        bugglebeetle 3y ago
        Your comment was about the impact of Christianity on the Roman Empire and in Europe, so that’s irrelevant, but Girard’s argument is also not about individual adherence to the ideology. Instead, it’s about the destruction of archaic virtue, premised on scapegoating and mythologized violence, as a result of Christianity. Modernity was premised on this, as identified by Nietzsche and others.
        cjohnson318 3y ago
- ardaoweo 3y ago
  That more just and equitable world is mainly an illusion created by cheap fossil fuels. Soon enough it will collapse, and there's not much ordinary people can do about it. Stoicism can at least help with accepting the inevitable.
  - cjohnson318 3y ago
    Cheap fossil fuels AND an economic environment where developing countries have a median standard of living an order of magnitude lower than developed countries. If 80% of the world lived in roughly the same tax bracket, then a pair of wool socks would be like $100, not $10.
- kieloo 3y ago
  You seem to fundamentally misunderstand stoicism. The idea is not to be passive but to understand the difference between what is and isn’t in our control. One of Marcus Aurelius’ most famous quotes actually encourages action: “Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one.” - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    This is itself a meaningless appeal that can be used to justify any behavior, absent a concrete example or definition of the good.
    - digging 3y ago
      Yes, obviously. It's meant to be consumed in context of knowing what good is. If you're lacking that context, don't use that single quote to guide your life choices.
    - weatherlight 3y ago
      ..or you could read Meditations where Aurelius does explain what it is to be a good man.
      - bugglebeetle 3y ago
        I’ve read it and found it to be sanctimonious apologia for the exercise of violent domination. Epictetus is more tolerable. The better example is the Buddhist tradition, where a figure of comparable authority to Aurelius abandoned power in pursuit of monasticism and universal respect for all life.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  That is not at all what Stoicism is about. I think Stoicism would be most succinctly described as the appreciation that you cannot control what happens to you, but you can control, with no mean effort, how you let it affect you. And that the greatest virtue in life is to be gained by living a life of ethics. There were metaphysical aspects to Stoicism as well, but I think few people adopt those now a days, and that's neither here nor there anyhow. A couple of Stoics involved in politics you may be interested in are Cato the Younger [1] and, of course, Marcus Aurelius. [2] Suffice to say that if our political class today was comprised of men with even a fraction of either of these men's character, the world would be an exponentially better place for everybody. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_the_Younger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_the_Younger [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    > I think Stoicism would be most succinctly described as the appreciation that you cannot control what happens to you, but you can control, with no mean effort, how you let it affect you. Which is why it was upheld by people administering the slave empires, and rejected by those who ultimately opposed and overthrew them. It justifies existing hierarchies and domination as natural vs. arising from systems which can be fundamentally changed.
    - weatherlight 3y ago
      I think people are getting hung up on the wrong things.. stoicism advocates for either actually changing/controlling the thing, or not worrying about it. More often than not, people are caught in the in-between where the spend absurd amount of time worrying about a specific problem but are unwilling/unable to take the action to resolve that issue. The other side of that is that sometimes things happen to you for which you have no control. An inoperable brain tumor, the weight of the death of a friend, your company going under, etc. in those moments, all you can ask for is to handle those situations with grace, virtue, and reason. And how you handle those situations (those uncontrollable ones) is completely on you. (Anecdotally, a friend of mine, who identifies as an adherent to stoic philosophy just organized his workplace and lead the unionization effort! He felt like he had the tools and power to help organize and make the changes in his work place! we told him that it was impossible/improbable and he's proved us all wrong.) Be the change you want to see in the world.
- weatherlight 3y ago
  > philosophy premised on resigning to yourself that no better world is possible. I think this is a misunderstanding. Stoicism isn't about passivity or resignation but rather about proactive engagement with the world, guided by virtue and rationality. If you have the means to change or shape the world, then do so...If you have the means to inspire people to change the world, then by god, do so.... There's plenty of examples throughout history of just that. for example, Cato the Younger, a Stoic, vehemently opposed Caesar believing him to be a a threat to the then fragile Roman Republic. He stood against Caesar's rise to power, even to the point of his tragic end, and became a bit of a martyr in that regard. Seneca the Younger, advised Emperor Nero (infamous madman) and tried to moderate Nero's rule with Stoic principles. Somewhat unsuccessfully, but he did try. A more modern example in George Washington, whose infamous demeanor was key in guiding the United States during its formative years, including the U.S. Revolutionary War and as the First President of that fledgling republic. Stoicism isn't a philosophy of resignation, Stoicism should be seen as a framework to navigate life's complexities with wisdom, reason, and virtue.
psunavy03 3y ago
> something many of us do not live in today. As a good portion of the US population is self-sorting into two warring tribes, both bent on screwing each other over by passing laws whose sole purpose is to harass the other tribe and obstruct their ability to live the life they choose. Not to mention folks in other countries caught in wars they didn't ask to be a part of. There's plenty of "cruel and domineering" to go around these days, and plenty of people who probably feel they have little to no ability to stop someone else from forcing their preferences on them.
- tsunamifury 3y ago
  Yes, and this is in painful contrast to their natural world, which broadly now takes care of their food, shelter and peaceful living needs. At least compared to previous eras. This asks a harder new question I believe stocism is not helpful in addressing.
- pvik 3y ago
  > both bent on screwing each other over by passing laws whose sole purpose is to harass the other tribe and obstruct their ability to live the life they choose. both tribes are doing this? What laws are the Democrats passing that are specifically targeted at the Republican demographic? especially with the goal of harassing them?
cjohnson318 3y ago
> It’s a thinly veiled excuse for self centered sociopathy Can you expand on or support this claim? This was not my takeaway at all.
digging 3y ago
> a cruel and bitter world — something many of us do not live in today. I really don't agree with that. We've solved many problems of the past, we've created many comforts, and we've created many accommodating structures, but we're mostly still at the mercy of forces greater than ourselves which can drive us into poverty/misery if we're not careful/able-bodied/lucky (and that's using "we" to mean middle+ class people in developed nations, which are a minority on Earth). We are also staring down numerous catastrophic futures, with hope for our children to live comfortably rapidly dwindling.
- tsunamifury 3y ago
  It’s been proven over and over that less people live in poverty and starvation than any other era of human history. To Claim otherwise is not supported by the data. However we have excelled at amplifying our remaining narrative of misery, warranted or not.
  - digging 3y ago
    > It’s been proven over and over that less people live in poverty and starvation than any other era of human history. To Claim otherwise is not supported by the data. Great, but that's not a claim either of us made. > However we have excelled at amplifying our remaining narrative of misery This claim is not supported by the data. Ancient people wrote some miserable literature.

kwhitefoot 3y ago

> Stoicism was a mentality created by an emperor No it wasn't. Stoicism was centuries old by the time of Aurelius. "Stoicism originated as a Hellenistic philosophy, founded in Athens by Zeno of Citium (modern day Cyprus), c. 300 B.C.E. It was influenced by Socrates and the Cynics, " https://iep.utm.edu/stoicism/ https://iep.utm.edu/stoicism/

tsunamifury 3y ago
[flagged]

bugglebeetle 3y ago

It is quite humorous that people have taken up a philosophy premised on resigning to yourself that no better world is possible, when the world devised by its adherents has been overthrown countless times over by people who did not believe that, resulting in the more just and equitable one we now inhabit.

tsunamifury 3y ago
This is an excellent point that people seem to constantly ignore. Stoicism, for all its helpful disciplines, has been countered by a reality where changes have taken place by people who dared to think otherwise and hold on to romantic ideals.
- ochronus 3y ago
  Some would say the 4 stoic virtues are romantic ideals ;)
bicepjai 3y ago
Can you provide an example ?
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  Christianity’s impact on the Roman Empire, quite famously and for starters.
  - cjohnson318 3y ago
    Did Christianity usher in a more just and equitable world? After the collapse of the Roman Empire in the 5th century, Europe trudged through the middle ages until the Renaissance in the 15th century.
    - bugglebeetle 3y ago
      Yes, by eroding the archaic notions of heroism and virtue, premised on destruction of the weak and the other. See Rene Girard.
      - cjohnson318 3y ago
        I think that millions of non-Christians over the centuries would have a different perspective than Rene Girard.
        bugglebeetle 3y ago
        Your comment was about the impact of Christianity on the Roman Empire and in Europe, so that’s irrelevant, but Girard’s argument is also not about individual adherence to the ideology. Instead, it’s about the destruction of archaic virtue, premised on scapegoating and mythologized violence, as a result of Christianity. Modernity was premised on this, as identified by Nietzsche and others.
        cjohnson318 3y ago
ardaoweo 3y ago
That more just and equitable world is mainly an illusion created by cheap fossil fuels. Soon enough it will collapse, and there's not much ordinary people can do about it. Stoicism can at least help with accepting the inevitable.
- cjohnson318 3y ago
  Cheap fossil fuels AND an economic environment where developing countries have a median standard of living an order of magnitude lower than developed countries. If 80% of the world lived in roughly the same tax bracket, then a pair of wool socks would be like $100, not $10.
kieloo 3y ago
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand stoicism. The idea is not to be passive but to understand the difference between what is and isn’t in our control. One of Marcus Aurelius’ most famous quotes actually encourages action: “Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one.” - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  This is itself a meaningless appeal that can be used to justify any behavior, absent a concrete example or definition of the good.
  - digging 3y ago
    Yes, obviously. It's meant to be consumed in context of knowing what good is. If you're lacking that context, don't use that single quote to guide your life choices.
  - weatherlight 3y ago
    ..or you could read Meditations where Aurelius does explain what it is to be a good man.
    - bugglebeetle 3y ago
      I’ve read it and found it to be sanctimonious apologia for the exercise of violent domination. Epictetus is more tolerable. The better example is the Buddhist tradition, where a figure of comparable authority to Aurelius abandoned power in pursuit of monasticism and universal respect for all life.
somenameforme 3y ago
That is not at all what Stoicism is about. I think Stoicism would be most succinctly described as the appreciation that you cannot control what happens to you, but you can control, with no mean effort, how you let it affect you. And that the greatest virtue in life is to be gained by living a life of ethics. There were metaphysical aspects to Stoicism as well, but I think few people adopt those now a days, and that's neither here nor there anyhow. A couple of Stoics involved in politics you may be interested in are Cato the Younger [1] and, of course, Marcus Aurelius. [2] Suffice to say that if our political class today was comprised of men with even a fraction of either of these men's character, the world would be an exponentially better place for everybody. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_the_Younger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_the_Younger [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  > I think Stoicism would be most succinctly described as the appreciation that you cannot control what happens to you, but you can control, with no mean effort, how you let it affect you. Which is why it was upheld by people administering the slave empires, and rejected by those who ultimately opposed and overthrew them. It justifies existing hierarchies and domination as natural vs. arising from systems which can be fundamentally changed.
  - weatherlight 3y ago
    I think people are getting hung up on the wrong things.. stoicism advocates for either actually changing/controlling the thing, or not worrying about it. More often than not, people are caught in the in-between where the spend absurd amount of time worrying about a specific problem but are unwilling/unable to take the action to resolve that issue. The other side of that is that sometimes things happen to you for which you have no control. An inoperable brain tumor, the weight of the death of a friend, your company going under, etc. in those moments, all you can ask for is to handle those situations with grace, virtue, and reason. And how you handle those situations (those uncontrollable ones) is completely on you. (Anecdotally, a friend of mine, who identifies as an adherent to stoic philosophy just organized his workplace and lead the unionization effort! He felt like he had the tools and power to help organize and make the changes in his work place! we told him that it was impossible/improbable and he's proved us all wrong.) Be the change you want to see in the world.
weatherlight 3y ago
> philosophy premised on resigning to yourself that no better world is possible. I think this is a misunderstanding. Stoicism isn't about passivity or resignation but rather about proactive engagement with the world, guided by virtue and rationality. If you have the means to change or shape the world, then do so...If you have the means to inspire people to change the world, then by god, do so.... There's plenty of examples throughout history of just that. for example, Cato the Younger, a Stoic, vehemently opposed Caesar believing him to be a a threat to the then fragile Roman Republic. He stood against Caesar's rise to power, even to the point of his tragic end, and became a bit of a martyr in that regard. Seneca the Younger, advised Emperor Nero (infamous madman) and tried to moderate Nero's rule with Stoic principles. Somewhat unsuccessfully, but he did try. A more modern example in George Washington, whose infamous demeanor was key in guiding the United States during its formative years, including the U.S. Revolutionary War and as the First President of that fledgling republic. Stoicism isn't a philosophy of resignation, Stoicism should be seen as a framework to navigate life's complexities with wisdom, reason, and virtue.

psunavy03 3y ago

> something many of us do not live in today. As a good portion of the US population is self-sorting into two warring tribes, both bent on screwing each other over by passing laws whose sole purpose is to harass the other tribe and obstruct their ability to live the life they choose. Not to mention folks in other countries caught in wars they didn't ask to be a part of. There's plenty of "cruel and domineering" to go around these days, and plenty of people who probably feel they have little to no ability to stop someone else from forcing their preferences on them.

tsunamifury 3y ago
Yes, and this is in painful contrast to their natural world, which broadly now takes care of their food, shelter and peaceful living needs. At least compared to previous eras. This asks a harder new question I believe stocism is not helpful in addressing.
pvik 3y ago
> both bent on screwing each other over by passing laws whose sole purpose is to harass the other tribe and obstruct their ability to live the life they choose. both tribes are doing this? What laws are the Democrats passing that are specifically targeted at the Republican demographic? especially with the goal of harassing them?

cjohnson318 3y ago

> It’s a thinly veiled excuse for self centered sociopathy Can you expand on or support this claim? This was not my takeaway at all.

digging 3y ago

> a cruel and bitter world — something many of us do not live in today. I really don't agree with that. We've solved many problems of the past, we've created many comforts, and we've created many accommodating structures, but we're mostly still at the mercy of forces greater than ourselves which can drive us into poverty/misery if we're not careful/able-bodied/lucky (and that's using "we" to mean middle+ class people in developed nations, which are a minority on Earth). We are also staring down numerous catastrophic futures, with hope for our children to live comfortably rapidly dwindling.

tsunamifury 3y ago
It’s been proven over and over that less people live in poverty and starvation than any other era of human history. To Claim otherwise is not supported by the data. However we have excelled at amplifying our remaining narrative of misery, warranted or not.
- digging 3y ago
  > It’s been proven over and over that less people live in poverty and starvation than any other era of human history. To Claim otherwise is not supported by the data. Great, but that's not a claim either of us made. > However we have excelled at amplifying our remaining narrative of misery This claim is not supported by the data. Ancient people wrote some miserable literature.