3 ms·

> 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,

> 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.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
somenameforme 3y ago
This neomodern take where everything has to be distilled into some black and white political view is not very applicable to reality in general, and even less so here. Stoicism a philosophical and worldview, not a political one. There were, and are, Stoics in all walks of life. Various individuals, in modern Western history, that have held Aurelius' meditations in extremely high esteem range from the person who coined the term collective bargaining, to Bill Clinton, to an Army general. [1] Among countless others. Of course holding that book in high esteem is not the same as being a Stoic, but on the other hand I don't think it's terribly far from it. The book would be quite a pointless source of inspiration for one who wasn't endeavoring to integrate Stoic ideals into their life. Stoicism is what one makes of it - it's not like you get a member card, and manuscript of dogma and taboo. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations#Reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations#Reception
zozbot234 3y ago
> Which is why it was upheld by people administering the slave empires, and rejected by those who ultimately opposed and overthrew them. Stoicism was not rejected past Antiquity, it was a major influence on later Christian philosophy. Also one of our foremost sources on Greek Stoicism was literally a slave.

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.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

somenameforme 3y ago

This neomodern take where everything has to be distilled into some black and white political view is not very applicable to reality in general, and even less so here. Stoicism a philosophical and worldview, not a political one. There were, and are, Stoics in all walks of life. Various individuals, in modern Western history, that have held Aurelius' meditations in extremely high esteem range from the person who coined the term collective bargaining, to Bill Clinton, to an Army general. [1] Among countless others. Of course holding that book in high esteem is not the same as being a Stoic, but on the other hand I don't think it's terribly far from it. The book would be quite a pointless source of inspiration for one who wasn't endeavoring to integrate Stoic ideals into their life. Stoicism is what one makes of it - it's not like you get a member card, and manuscript of dogma and taboo. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations#Reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations#Reception

zozbot234 3y ago

> Which is why it was upheld by people administering the slave empires, and rejected by those who ultimately opposed and overthrew them. Stoicism was not rejected past Antiquity, it was a major influence on later Christian philosophy. Also one of our foremost sources on Greek Stoicism was literally a slave.