10 ms·

Stoicism's appeal to the rich and powerful (2019)

• Melatonic 2y ago
  My interpretation was always that the Stoics were the more type-A people while the people following Epicureanism were a bit more hippie. Still lots of overlap
• trgn 2y ago
  how quickly things change. the aspirational tech ethos today is one of a will to dominion, of incessant action over introspection, of gut over mind.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• adamnemecek 2y ago
  I wonder what caused the current obsession with stoicism. It seems vacant.
  • larrykubin 2y ago
    I always traced this to Ryan Holiday marketing the philosophy and selling books on the topic and starting a YouTube channel "The Daily Stoic"
    • accrual 2y ago
      Ryan Holiday is a good guy. I've followed his content for a while. Yes, he is marketing essentially "free" philosophy, but he does a good job adapting it to modern life.
  • michaelsbradley 2y ago
    Interest in stoicism seems to be cyclical on HN. I’ve been following HN regularly since 2010, and I noticed that a couple of times per year there were/are spikes in stoicism-related submissions and discussions over a few weekends. My unsubstantiated theory is that someone gives a presentation/s touching on stoicism to new YC batches, or something like that.
  • bloqs 2y ago
    [flagged]
  • ksynwa 2y ago
    [flagged]
  • alabastervlog 2y ago
    Vanity.
  • aschobel 2y ago
    Could you recommend another philosophy worth exploring? As someone who's relatively new to Stoicism, I've found the four virtues (wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance) to offer valuable guidance for living a balanced life. I'd genuinely appreciate hearing more about your perspective—why do you find Stoicism vacant?
    • nickpsecurity 2y ago
      I'd suggest the Word of God (Bible). It's full of wisdom which includes the four you mentioned. It can also give you access to our Creator on a personal level, forgiveness for sins you've committed, eternal life, inner change driven by God Himself, and prayer He actually answers. It's pretty awesome. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201&version=ESV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201&versio... I usually give people John above. I tell them to ask God to speak to their hearts about the truth. Then, read it all the way through. Ask as you read: "Who is Jesus? What is our problem? How does He say we will be saved? How do we live?"
  • codexb 2y ago
    It's a remarkably good set of strategies and mindset for dealing with conflict, anxiety, and having to make a large number of difficult decisions. The core of stoicism (stressed more by Epictetus, a former slave, than Marcus Aurelius) is that we should not focus or worry on things we can't control. We can't control other people, or societies, or the unforeseen tragic events we may experience, but we can control our own actions, our own thoughts, and the way we respond to them. We can't dictate our emotions, but we can handle how we express those emotions. In many ways, it's similar to what you might learn going through therapy. But the mental health and difficulties that men face are somewhat overlooked by society and not taken as seriously as maybe they should be. In that environment, literally any strategies at all for dealing with stress and anxiety that are tailored towards men are going to be popular.
    • josephstalinOk 2y ago
      [dead]
    • engels_gibs 2y ago
      Thats patently false. Some people do control other people, some people do control whole societies. What stoicism does is: for the underclass, it tells them to accept such control. Lying that "you have no control" over working conditions, exploitation, misery, hunger, suffering, etc. Do nothing, because nothing you do will matter. And for the capitalists upper class what it does is to validate the atroicities they commit: "the universe is an eternal good entity, everything happens for a reason. Sixty thousand children killed in Gaza? Its just the universe changing colors, changing quantity, some people turned from alive to unalive, but in the grand scheme of things it doesnt matter. You are just doing your role".
      • accrual 2y ago
        If you're underclass and beat up on by society above you, stoicism is a very rational philosophy to adopt. If you're upper crust and controlling everyone beneath you, I think it's still worthwhile to consider stoicism. Or is there some kind of divide - if one is poor you should enact one set of philosophies, if you're rich and powerful one should enact different philosophies?
  • tasty_freeze 2y ago
    I don't follow Tim Ferriss, but I heard him interviewed on a podcast I sometimes listen to (I forget which) and Ferris said he reads MA's writings at least yearly and has done so for decades, and credited it with helping him with his depression and other issues. I got the impression he mentions it and advocates that everyone should study them as well. The interviewer was equally enthusiastic about MA. Considering the popularity of Ferriss, he is probably part of the reason. I suspect the type of people who read his books (eg the 4 hour work week) probably are into it too as it is a macho stance to take. Who the hell thinks it is good to sleep on a stone floor in order to toughen your mind so you don't get too attached to comforts? My philosophy is I'll deal with suffering when it comes, and not practice before then to get good at it. It reminds me of an interview many years ago with Jim Rose, who put on a traveling sideshow circus. There were no tricks -- the performs just did strange, painful things for entertainment. One of his routines was his wife would throw darts, using Rose's back as the dartboard. The interviewer asked, "Do you practice this?" He replied something like, "Hell no! It hurts! I did it once to see if I could do it, but after that I only do it for the show, where I get paid!"
• qoez 2y ago
  One perspective is that meditation and stoicism helps silence guilt about being so properous in an unequal society.
  • bko 2y ago
    Why should one feel guilt about being prosperous in an unequal society? Even if you accept that it's based entirely on luck rather than merits, I don't see why you should feel guilt. A few examples of things based entirely on luck that no one really argues we should feel guilty about: Being tall Having high innate level of intelligence Athletic Physical beauty
    • Palomides 2y ago
      height isn't fungible even if acquiring wealth is random, retaining wealth means choosing not to see and positively act on the state of the world
      • wallawe 2y ago
        > retaining wealth means choosing not to see and positively act on the state of the world This is just silly. Just because you retain wealth doesn't mean you aren't positively acting to improve the current state of the world.
        • Palomides 2y ago
          every dollar kept is a choice not to effect one dollar of change
    • mjburgess 2y ago
      Because you're a social animal in a social world, whose social action creates and modifies that world. Since you are a body, in an environment, with a psychology -- your actions have an effect upon the world. The invitation to dissociate and mute your social emotions is an invitation to keep everything as-it-is.
• mjburgess 2y ago
  It's no accident that a roman emperor (tyrant, mass murderer, and courtier) is the premier famous stoic. Nor is it an accident that the next most famous case is that of British empire public schooling, british "stiff upper lip" stocisim. (EDIT: Marcus Aurelius) himself was no stoic philosopher, he merely wrote diaries to himself in his late days -- diaries he wanted burned, not published. And these were rehresals of what his stoic teachers had taught him while he was being raised into the roman aristocracy. Without this context, its very easy to misread his diaries in the manner of some religious text, cherry picking "whatever sounds nice". Its clear, under this view, how bitter and resentful many of these reflections were. He retreated to his diaries to "practice stoical thoughts" on those occasions where he was emotionally distributed. They are, mostly, rants. Rants against the court (eg., ignore the schemes of others, etc.); rants against the public (no matter if one is whipped, beaten, etc.); rants against how his prestige means little as a leader. Stocism here serves as a recipie to smooth one's injuries faced as a member of the elite, surrounded by vipers and with meaningless prestige. Stoicism, under this light, is training for a ruthless sort of leadership. From the pov of The Leader, all adoration is fake, all prestige, and status. Your job is to pretend it matters because it matters to your followers. It's a deeply hollow, dissociative, nihilistic philosophy which dresses up the status quo as "God's plan" -- a rationalization of interest to the elite above all others.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • lonestar 2y ago
    I believe you mean Marcus Aurelius
    • mjburgess 2y ago
      I have read his diaries, though carelessly writing Mark Antony over Marcus Aurelius does undermine the point. -- Thanks, edited. I guess one shouldnt write HN comments while listening to corporate policy announcements.
      • 2y ago
• atlantic 2y ago
  Calling Plato a dualist seriously calls into question the author's philosophical credentials.
  • guerrilla 2y ago
    Plato is generally considered to be the archetype of early dualism. What are your credentials?
  • n4r9 2y ago
    > Please don't post shallow dismissals > Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  • pphysch 2y ago
    We can squabble over definitions, but a primary characteristic of Platonism for many people is the belief in a (separate) domain of ideals/concepts. That e.g. mathematical objects exist outside of our individual cognition. That's more dualistic than monistic.
• pj_mukh 2y ago
  "stoicism’s Providential claim that everything in the universe is already perfect and that things which seem bad or unjust are secretly good underneath (a claim Christianity borrowed from Stoicism) can be used to justify the idea that the rich and powerful are meant to be rich and powerful" What did I miss? Does Stoicism claim everything in the universe is already perfect? That seems like a bold (counter-intuitive) claim.
  • LatteLazy 2y ago
    Stoicism does not claim that at all. Not sure what the author means…
  • isleyaardvark 2y ago
    It’s wrong on the same level of “The central message of Buddhism is not ‘every man for himself’, Otto!”
  • betenoire 2y ago
    "perfect" is a weird word to use in stoicism, but I do think it can be used to justify that things "are the way they are" and shrug it off with some visualization.
    • pj_mukh 2y ago
      I always saw Stoicism as “things around you are going to be really screwed up and panicking about it will make it worse” The first part of that sentence is opposite to what the author here suggests.
      • betenoire 2y ago
        both "screwed up" and "perfect" are judgements calls/perspectives, and panicking isn't going to change things (panic doesn't necessarily make something worse either)
        • bigstrat2003 2y ago
• LatteLazy 2y ago
  Stoicism has 2 main advantages over other philosophies: * it’s practical. It involves doing things that work and will improve you life, make it clearer what you want and make it easier to do things and generally not waste your time or money * it’s true in a trial and error, scientific sense. Stoicism concentrates on what works and is applicable. Beleifs come from life experience. Most other philosophies START with arbitrary beliefs and then expect you to live according to them whether they work or not.
• bigstrat2003 2y ago
  I'm certainly not rich or powerful, but I have found Stoicism to be extremely helpful. It is hard to always bear it in mind when in times of stress, but when I can, it really does help to focus on the idea that what matters is not my external circumstances, but my own actions and thoughts. It reframes things and helps me to feel better about unpleasant situations I might find myself in. I also would say that I disagree with the author in his assessment of Stoic thought. He asserts that with millennia of experience, we have learned that we can effect change on the world. I believe that if anything the exact opposite is true. Some men have more power to change the world than others, but for most of us we can't do a damn thing. For example, if I'm unhappy with the actions of the US government, I can write to my representatives asking them to change things, and I can vote for someone else next election (or possibly participate in a recall effort). But that's all I can do, and (speaking from experience) those don't accomplish anything. I still do those things because they are my duty, but I'm realistic about the fact that they aren't going to change a thing and I don't stress out.
• droideqa 2y ago
  "You want to live 'according to nature'? Oh, you noble Stoics, what deceptive words! Think of a being like nature, prodigal beyond measure, indifferent beyond measure, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain—do you want to live according to such indifference?" - Nietzsche
• prophesi 2y ago
  It's unfortunate that the elite's interest in stoicism (along with the sigma male crowd) has tainted its perception. It's essentially the basis of CBT and logotherapy that has changed my life for the better. But we also saw this with Buddhist meditation and other various practices divorced from the worldview that spawned them.
• nis0s 2y ago
  > Because I think it’s important that we mingle some Voltaire in with our Seneca, and remember that stoicism’s invaluable advice for taking better care of ourselves inside can–if we fail to mix it with other ideas–come with a big blind spot regarding the world outside ourselves, and whether we should change it. Ideally the answer is no, there’s no need to actively change systems if the system proponents are not interested in that change. In case of majority rules, the minority has to seek compromise. Such rules assume that different systems will create their own conditions for long term stability, and there will not be any interference from outside forces. Under these ideal conditions, agents have freedom of movement to other places, where they exercise free will and actualize because determinism by random events (like being born into a specific system in which an agent is unfulfilled or unwelcome) does not promote long term stability for any system. In reality, however, agents compete to dominate, and every system then has to mirror each other in some way, or face destabilization. There’s no such thing as resource scarcity in an endless universe—the problem of different systems is that the existence of another presents an existential threat. Stoicism helps manage this existential threat while acknowledging the caveat that aggressively defending the existence of a system is justified when faced with a direct threat. A note on social inequality in a given state: if everyone has the same rights, and those rights are applied equally, then that ensures long term cultural stability. If you create second class citizens, or justly aggrieved minorities, then that’s asking for trouble as any interfering force can use that minority to create destabilization. The only things which makes sense is letting people have their own places, and not be interfered with; practically, for a country like the U.S., it means that all states should be free to determine their own set of rules governing rights outside of the purview of the Constitution. In that case, maybe it’s more humane for blue states to accept refugees from red states, and vice versa. Like people mad about Trans rights in CA should move to TX. Extending this logic dictates that blue cities in red states can have their own rules for governance. I think, then, the smallest unit which can have its own set of governing powers should be any which has the resources to implement them, in a self-sufficient and independent manner. I don’t know practical that might be, but it’s an interesting thought experiment.
• shw1n 2y ago
  I can’t speak for the rich and powerful (as I’m neither), nor do I subscribe to stoicism necessarily. But I do work in tech and enjoyed (and periodically re-read) Marcus Aurelius’ “Meditations” I originally read it out of curiosity, not often you get to see a leader’s supposedly unedited, personal diary. But I keep coming back because of the calming prose and (imo) useful lessons about dealing with a stressful world. Eg Epictetus’ quote “don’t hand your mind over to every passerby” and “don’t be upset by disrespect from people you don’t respect” were good reminders on not getting mentally derailed from rudeness or slights by the minority of interactions throughout a day. “we all come from nature” is a nice reminder on forgiveness Perhaps the first two could be seen as elitist, but it was helpful to me in a customer-facing role in dealing with the 10% of rude clients. Overall it reads like a secular proverbs, with that much more weight due to the size and non-publishing intent of the author.
  • sdsd 2y ago
    I love Meditations but everytime I think about Aurelius I laugh so hard thinking about this random Reddit post: https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoic/comments/1823mip/how_do_you_get_over_the_fact_marcus_aurelius_wife/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoic/comments/1823mip/how_do_you_g... Here's the text: ## How do you get over the fact Marcus Aurelius wife cheated on him with a gladiator? I have been into stoicism for a while and have been using it to cope with life but learning this info has made me second guess the entire philosophy. Now whenever I try to be stoic I think about Marcus sitting in the corner writing meditations while his wife gets brutalized by a gigachad gladiator. Now whenever I think about stoicism it seems like a cuck philosophy. Was Marcus really the adam22 of his time? How can I get over this? --- Idk why this was the funniest thing to me, and now I just think of Marcus in the other room, hearing his wife getting ploughed, writing about how happiness doesn't depend on external circumstance so it's nbd
    • stuartjohnson12 2y ago
      I saw a post a while ago from a guy who had read the 48 laws of power and tried to mirror the girl he liked but ended up making her think he was gay instead. Same energy.
• bee_rider 2y ago
  It seems to be a philosophy about being a good little productive serf and continuing to be productive while taking your powerlessness on the nose? Why would anybody in a modern free society follow this philosophy?
  • broof 2y ago
    I found it to be way more empowering. There truly are many things in life that we don’t control, but there are many that we do. Would you agree it’s wise to reduce stress about the stuff we don’t have control over?
  • surgical_fire 2y ago
    > Why would anybody in a modern free society follow this philosophy? If I don't accept the absurd stupidity of others, and exercise temperance and prudence in my dealings with my fellow men, life in modern society would be nearly impossible. As an example, this very post.
    • bee_rider 2y ago
      > As an example, this very post. Ah, don’t be too hard on yourself.
  • bigstrat2003 2y ago
    That is not remotely what the philosophy is about. It's about not letting your external circumstances trouble your internal emotions, because they aren't what truly matters. It isn't passive acceptance - Stoics can, and should, try to improve the world around them. They just don't attach their happiness to whether those attempts succeed or fail. As to why someone would follow the philosophy, it's simple: we all face stressful situations in life (some more stressful than others of course). Why should you let those things rule your emotions? It doesn't help anything to get upset. It just makes you feel worse. It is a pure negative thing in your life. So, you work to try to gain mastery over those feelings so that even when life is hard you can face it more effectively and with greater peace of mind.
    • 2y ago
• siliconc0w 2y ago
  It's a philosophy that is a lot easier to adhere to when you have some amount of power or agency and your basic needs are met.
  • bigstrat2003 2y ago
    On the contrary, it's a philosophy that is perfect for the powerless and destitute. One of the most famous Stoics (Epictetus) was a slave. People have used the philosophy to help get them through stints in POW camps. It is by no means a philosophy that is primarily for those with power or agency.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • accrual 2y ago
    They're useful practices even when you have nothing. They emphasize having no power over anything but your own mind and reaction to external events. You cannot control being carried away by the government or forced to be a slave or torture victim. You can still control your mind in those circumstances, and that is what stoicism emphasizes.
  • dtdynasty 2y ago
    I think all philosophies are easier to adhere to with basic needs met. Living life without basic needs makes everything difficult.
• oramit 2y ago
  It's been interesting to watch and experience Techbros jump on different philosophical/religious trends over the years. Post 9/11 through the Great Financial Crisis New Atheism was all the rage. Once the tech boom was in full swing Stoicism became the dominant ideology. Now, post Covid I see a hard pivot towards Christianity, but importantly, "traditional" forms of it. Protestant sects are being ignored and Catholicism, or if you are really intense, Orthodoxy seems to be in vogue.
  • kolanos 2y ago
    > Now, post Covid I see a hard pivot towards Christianity, but importantly, "traditional" forms of it. Protestant sects are being ignored and Catholicism, or if you are really intense, Orthodoxy seems to be in vogue. I have seen these trends as well, especially Orthodoxy of late. My assumption is this is a response to rampant moral relativism that has become the dominant culture in the west.
    • oramit 2y ago
      I think you're being too kind in assuming there is some sort of real philosophy or faith here. I laid out what I have observed the tech elite doing precisely to show that they are rootless and will join with whatever bandwagon is popular in their techbro circle. It's the great irony of our tech elite. They all believe they are independent thinkers who are changing the world but like any clique they follow what the group says and found another Sass App or become another VC investor.
  • throw4847285 2y ago
    I was recently listening to a podcast about Silicon Valley thought which theorized that at its root it is a justificatory mechanism and not a coherent worldview. Whatever the current problems facing Silicon Valley, its leadership will find some new theoretical underpinning that happens to justify whatever is in their naked self-interest. It's "move fast break things" but with philosophy. Their example was Marc Andreessen who once had coherent ideas that could be agreed with or disagreed with, but saw the writing on the wall and has aligned his "thinking" with the political movement he thinks will most protect his interests.
• bambax 2y ago
  > But for all Seneca’s powerful advice about the big picture and the meaninglessness of wealth, he was also a slave-owner who, when alerted that his male slaves were sexually abusing his female slaves, set up a brothel in his estate so he could make his male slaves pay him for the privilege of abusing his female slaves–not quite the behavior we imagine when Seneca says money is meaningless and all living beings are sacred. It could be argued that this policy was simply reasonable: the only alternatives being to either do nothing, or set up a police force to prevent and/or punish abuse. Also, not sure if Seneca really believed "all living beings [were] sacred"; he despised games of gladiators because he thought the spectacles were vulgar and appealed to lower instincts, but he never expressed any form of compassion for the gladiators themselves. Anyway, I knew that Seneca was the richest Roman in his time (and perhaps, of all times), but didn't hear that story before. Would like to know more. (Did slaves have money to spend?)
• samspot 2y ago
  "But on the negative side, stoicism’s Providential claim that everything in the universe is already perfect and that things which seem bad or unjust are secretly good underneath (a claim Christianity borrowed from Stoicism) can be used to justify the idea that the rich and powerful are meant to be rich and powerful, that the poor and downtrodden are meant to be poor and downtrodden, and that even the worst actions are actually good in an ineffable and eternal way" I didn't understand these repeated digs at Christianity as having been borrowed from the Stoics. For one, that all bad things are actually good is not a tenet of Christianity and is not in the Bible. Perhaps some Christians taught this, but you can find a person claiming Christ who teaches absolutely anything you can think of. Such is the nature of things that are popular. I can only assume the author is referring to this section from Romans 8:28 (NIV) "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose." If you fly through too quickly you could reach the Stoic claim, but there are a few key differences. 1. It says "God works for the good" in all things, but not that all those things are good in essence. 2. This is a promise only to those who love God, not automatically extended to all people or things. Finally, I'll note that the entire Old Testament predates the Stoics, and is the foundation for Christian thinking about God's will and plan for the universe.
  • scantis 2y ago
    In the story oh Hiob/Job,he is unaffected in his behavior and the trust instilled in him from others, which clearly discouble his person from his misfortune. In the original there is no word for faith, believe or trust only for character. Job is of good character despite his misfortune, that makes him a man of God.
    • taylorlapeyre 2y ago
      Technically correct, but quite misleading. The idea of "trust in God" or "faithfulness" is completely central to Job. The story doesn't concern itself with "doctrinal faith", but it implicitly discusses "faith" in the general sense of trust in the providence of God in the face of challenges that might make one abandon Him.
• mothax 2y ago
  Epictetus, anyone?
• kebbelarielle38 2y ago
  [dead]
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I find that the tools of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a re-embodiment of many of elements of stoicism. It is interesting to think of the 50 million Americans going to therapy as paying for a personal philosophy mentor. You can use this as a jumping off point for all kinds of societal speculation and armchair observations on culture.
• ViktorRay 2y ago
  If anyone is interested in stoicism then this classic lecture by Dr Sugrue is excellent. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Auuk1y4DRgk I have watched this lecture multiple times (each time I was going through some bad things in my life) and it helped me tremendously. Stoicism in general has many excellent philosophical ideas that you can apply to your life. Maybe this lecture and stoic ideals will help you if you are in times of despair and sadness the way this lecture and those ideals helped me.
• morning-coffee 2y ago
  Is it a bit ironic that the author, a stoic herself, seems bothered by rich people using stoicism to advance themselves? edit: corrected pronoun
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • TheCoelacanth 2y ago
    I don't think she is a stoic or particularly bothered by rich people using it. She is a historian and this is a topic that overlaps with her area of study.
    • morning-coffee 2y ago
      Apologies for the assumption. (Edited). She said: "I personally love stoicism. It’s gorgeous. It’s brilliant." Maybe that doesn't make her a stoic, but it still struck me as ironic that she seemed wary of rich people using it, that's all.
• xyzzy123 2y ago
  Life isn't fair but you also have agency. That's my favourite take.
• overgard 2y ago
  You know, I think people will read the headline and have an eat-the-rich-mindset and lump stoicism in with obnoxious tech bros. However, I would posit that if tech-bro's internalize the teachings of stoicism we'd all be better off. It's worth mentioning that Epictetus was a slave, so just because the rich and powerful are finding stoicism doesn't mean that stoicism is a philosophy for only the rich and powerful. Just as an example, stoicism is also very popular in recovery communities (along with Buddhism). As far as pragmatic philosophies go that you can apply easily and have quick benefits, stoicism is a great one.
• stereolambda 2y ago
  Not a bad article, all things considered. Interesting, given the overall message, that the author manages to spin the worldly engagement that is still present in stoicism (as opposed to Epicureanism etc.) as somehow a suspicious thing. In Republican times the dominance of stoicism in Rome wasn't so pronounced, I think, and the elite followed all kinds of philosophies. And soon, under the Empire, the political engagement became more of a theatre anyways. Patrician families declined. So the whole idea of having an excuse to stay in politics is weaker that one might think. There was more of an incentive to shut off in your villa as much as you can, and just try to avoid displeasing the emperor. Graeco-Roman world also created more patterns of radical political engagement than people tend to give it credit for (regardless of what you think of its legitimacy). Plato with his speculatively constructed vision of ideal republic. Ideologically motivated coups, like one of the Spartan king Cleomenes. Generations of social radicalism had looked at Gracchi. We are just too far removed from classical education to see and appreciate it. The idea that you somehow have to pursue universal salvation as a part of and precondition of your personal happiness, I think this is extremely wrong-headed. Maybe not OP, but many people think you are morally obliged to be permanently depressed and want to ideologically control your every waking thought. In actuality, I'd say it is better to have internal calm and contentment to be able to achieve whatever you are able to achieve for the world. As for popularity of ancient philosophy, I think some of this is it having more practical outlook and being less complicated, in a way, than most modern (meaning post-medieval) thought. Note that wide popularity of Enlightenment in 1700s also stemmed from it being more accessible to the masses in many ways. While also ancient stuff has enough of a "base lore" to be somewhat insulated from completely freewheeling "philosophical" crankery. That being said, I would encourage anyone to also look into Epicurean, skeptic etc. thought alongside stoicism. Cicero was somewhat right in trying to peruse and combine all this stuff.
• hiAndrewQuinn 2y ago
  Cultivating stoicism probably increases one's power and riches on the margin, because it emphasizes emotional stability which is correlated with higher incomes. Hedonism probably works in the opposite direction on net, even though hedonists would probably get more direct pleasure out of the extra cash.
• josephstalinOk 2y ago
  [dead]
• engels_gibs 2y ago
  The first, true and only philosophy for the working class, the exploited, the proletarians and the dispossessed is marxism. Teaching "stoicism" to people who barely can afford food, to slaves in the Congo, to overworked uber eats cyclists that work 12 hours a day for pennies, is not only ridiculous, it's criminal. Standing silent or content in the face of exploitation, injustice and the threat of destruction of humanity is indeed an ethics that benefit the rich and powerful. "Be content, stay quiet, dont make noise, dont revolt, dont organize, accept your place in the universe.". Marx was the first philosopher that recognized that philosophy is a product of material conditions, and that it servers the interests of the economic system that contains it. That's why marxism would have been impossible in ancient greece and there was never a greek philosopher that advocated revolution or seizing political power.
  • AlexandrB 2y ago
    Every Marxism-derived political system has been terrible for the proletariat. I lived under communism for the first 6 years of my life. What I remember is a tiny apartment, an elevator that reeked of piss, having to store water in buckets because you never knew when it would stop working, and wiping my ass with yesterday's newspaper (which you obviously couldn't flush). Even at my poorest in Canada, I've never known such terrible conditions. If there is some value to Marxism, we have not yet found a government system that can actually implement it. Edit: What's even funnier is that my parents were well-educated professionals. My dad a mechanical engineer and my mom a lab tech. When my mom and I moved to Canada, my step-dad was a janitor. Technically he owned a janitorial company, but he was the only employee - basically a contractor. And yet, under capitalism, he was able to afford a life far more lavish than anything Communism would allow.
    • engels_gibs 2y ago
      In which country did you live? I don't think anyone with even a basic understanding of history can say that communism has been bad for the working class. Really? Communism transformed the Soviet Union into a global superpower in just a few decades. It turned a rural, agrarian society into one that launched the first satellite into space. It provided free housing and education to people who, for generations, couldn't even read. It achieved groundbreaking advancements in nuclear energy and developed the atomic bomb. China, under the leadership of the Communist Party, is now #1 in science, technology, and industry. Its success as a superpower is thanks to communism. And before you argue, "but China isn't communist!!!11," please shut up. Yes, it is. If it were just another average capitalist country, it wouldn't have achieved even 1% of what it has. It would have been exploited by imperialist powers, just like Latin America and Africa. China's rise to #1 is due to the Communist Party's strict control over capital. The Soviet bloc did decline and collapsed in the late 20th century. You likely lived through that time, as its collapse was caused by competition from the West, bureaucratization of the revolution, and a lack of innovation. However, saying "the revolution stagnated" because "communism was a failure" is entirely false. It wasn't a failure; the most significant story of the 20th century is the resounding success of communism wherever it was applied. Even if you lived in a capitalist country, as a worker, you have communism to thank. The fear of communism forced the West to implement a welfare state and make reforms that benefited workers they otherwise wouldn't have. They poured billions into workers' hands to prevent them from embracing communism. Communism led to the creation of the Welfare State and the Marshall Plan. Competition with the Soviet Union is why South Korea and Japan received hundreds of billions from the USA. The fear of a revolution was very real, prompting many third-world countries to adopt nationalist and welfare-state policies that improved millions' lives. Your argument simply doesn't hold up. It is demonstrably false.
• 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  It appeals to them because it's everything they aren't. Temperance and virtue? Please.
• kittikitti 2y ago
  I absolutely hate Stoicism. It's used by people as a way to shut me up when I'm expressing negativity about something "I can't control". Almost everything about our lives, especially as we transition to this rent based economy, is out of our control. Stoicism just creates lonely people who are obsessed with controlling things and others.
  • ChildOfChaos 2y ago
    This is nonsense though. How are people using stoicism to shut you up? I've never seen anyone do that. If they are, they are misunderstanding the intention. Doing what you can control and focusing on that, doesn't mean that you also don't speak up for change, because that is entirely something you can still control. In fact it's encouraged, because of stoic 'virtue', "That which you do the right thing, that is all that matters" If others are using it to shut up up, that is what is outside of your control, you ignore it and do the right thing anyway. Under stoicism, you would still push and advocate for change as an individual, but you would understand that if the world doesn't change or doesn't respond, that is out of your control, but you can and should still excuse your right to do that, because that is within your control. The entire argument here seems to be missing the point.
  • surgical_fire 2y ago
    > I absolutely hate Stoicism. You should exercise nore temperance. It is futile to hate things you can't control.
    • onemoresoop 2y ago
      The world is varied and that is a good thing. Wouldn't it be boring if everyone practiced the same thing, if everyone thought the same thing? I agree with practicing temperance because this fits me but I can accept perfectly fine that it won't suit everyone.
  • cantrecallmypwd 2y ago
    Forget all -ists and -isms. There is are discontinuous, spectrum of limits to locus-of-control. It's important not to fall into either trap of absolutist internal or external LoC. I think there are generally too many people in wider humanity who adopt defeatist, learned helplessness, external local-of-control attitudes through sayings like "it's God's will" or "you can't fight city hall".
• lo_zamoyski 2y ago
  "stoicism’s Providential claim that everything in the universe is already perfect and that things which seem bad or unjust are secretly good underneath (a claim Christianity borrowed from Stoicism)" This is obviously and patently false. Christianity recognizes that God has both an active and permissive will. So, while God actively wills the good, He does not actively will evil. This would make God evil, which is incoherent. Rather, God permits evil, but only to bring about some greater good. So, it isn't that the evil isn't really evil, and it isn't that God wills the evil, but rather that the evil is permitted to occur to allow a good to come out of it. We do not deny the evil or the suffering it causes, but we embrace it and allow it to become an instrument of the good. To refuse to suffer the inevitable and inescapable evil that will be inflicted on us only produces more suffering, but a fruitless kind (though potentially instrumentally fruitful in that it may be instructive on this point). The Crucifixion is the paradigmatic example of fruitful suffering and self-sacrifice. The Crucifixion is tremendously evil, and according to Christian theology, the greatest evil ever committed. But by permitting this greatest of evils, God created the greatest of sacrifices, so cosmically great, in fact, that it could pay the price for all sin ever committed. So, there's no complacency in Christianity, but it is cool-headed and subjects the emotional to reason and moves by the authentic love reason enables. "stoicism predates the concept of human-generated progress by more than a millennium. It doesn’t teach us how to change the terrible aspects of the world, it teaches us how to adapt ourselves to them, and to accept them, presuming that they fundamentally cannot be fixed." Another divergence is that Christianity encourages the humble discernment of what should be changed, what can be changed, and what cannot be changed and what should not be changed. In retrospect, this is common sense, and that is a good sign and to its credit, but ideologically-possessed people can become enraptured by a spirited and blind pursuit of some real or perceived good and cause a good deal of destruction as a result. There is a big difference between authentic zeal, which remains firmly rooted in reason, and becoming blinded by one's passions.
  • AlexandrB 2y ago
    It's interesting, as well, to consider how much of "human generated progress" is just technological progress. The core flaws of human nature like greed or pride stubbornly refuse to change. If you rolled back the industrial revolution I don't think we'd be living in an equally free society where everyone is just materially worse off but in something that probably resembles the political and social climate of the time before this technological leap occurred.
• stared 2y ago
  If Stoicism appeals to the rich, I wonder if the same can be said about Western Buddhism à la Alan Watts and other "everything is love" spiritual philosophies? From my anecdotal observations, these philosophies particularly appeal to successful people - especially those recovering from burnout or seeking balance in their careers. Think Burning Man's tech hippies. And let's be honest: not every working-class person can afford to take time off for a spiritual retreat. This dynamic was brilliantly portrayed in the Black Mirror episode "Smithereens". To be clear - I am just as guilty as charged.
• ChildOfChaos 2y ago
  Half the comment section seems to be entirely missing the point of Stoicism. Stoicism is not merely just accepting everything and allowing it to happen, without pushing for advancement. That is absurd. Under Stoicism, you would still push for that advancement and speak up for it, as doing so is not living according to virtue or nature (which Stoics defined our nature as our ability to reason). It's just that you will focus within that on the things that you can control, such as your own personal activism. If anything it pushes people to do more in this area, not less. Because often people feel helpless so don't do anything, Stoicism would teach to do it anyway, because that is the part you can control and the only way to live a life of virtue, what the world does in reaction to that, is up to the world. People that have a problem with this way of thinking/being seem to have taken a reductionist version of the philosophy to argue against it.
• cantrecallmypwd 2y ago
  There are no rational arguments or pathos appeals to assuage the greed and lust for power by the rich. They're too far gone and immovable, especially when they have the personality defects similar to malignant narcissism. They only respect strength.
  • AlexandrB 2y ago
    What do you think is the causative factor? Is it that the greedy and narcissistic are able to amass wealth or that wealth often changes you to be more greedy and narcissistic?
• rqtwteye 2y ago
  I feel stoicism works reasonably well when your life goes generally well. If your life is going very badly, I think it ends up like a lot of positive thinking where you have to live in an almost delusional world where you pretend things are good while they really aren't
  • loughnane 2y ago
    My experience is the opposite. Stoicism (and those they influenced like Plutarch, Emerson, Thoreau) helped me in hard times. It's divine getting to a point where you can at once care deeply about something and yet realize it's fate is out of your control---and so not break when that thing dies. Even approaching that state by degrees is worthwhile, and I found stoic thinking to help with it.
  • accrual 2y ago
    It's not able pretending things are good when they aren't. It's about exercising your will against your mind and controlling your thoughts and behaviors even when you cannot control your external environment. Rich or poor - stoicism is about self mastery. If I lost everything and was in some terrible situation, I'd rather be a stoic.
• stephc_int13 2y ago
  Stoicism and Protestantism are closely linked, and in my opinion the former served as inspiration for the latter. So given the historic dominance of the Protestant culture in large parts of "the west", it should not be a surprise that rich and powerful men find Stoicism appealing.
• sourtrident 2y ago
  Funny how Silicon Valley and ancient Rome both use Stoicism to justify ambition rather than avoid it. Sort of reminds me of yoga retreats for CEOs - I mean, mastering inner peace while negotiating billion-dollar deals feels suspiciously like having your philosophical cake and eating it too.
  • nine_k 2y ago
    Japanese medieval samurai studied zen for the same reason: it gives you the peace of mind, the skill of concentration, and the contact with yourself that help noticeably when you don't have time to contemplate, as in a sword fight. (May have other benefits, too, but this seemed to be the evolutionary selection driver.)
  • sdwr 2y ago
    If you are average, your thinking and emotional processing are basically done for you - you have tons of examples of people dealing with every challenge you face (in media, in your immediate surroundings). The people who need those internal resources are the people on the edges of the bell curve - those with no control, and those with (ostensibly) tons of control.
• voidhorse 2y ago
  In theory stoicism's precepts are not bad, in practice, however, I've rarely seen them amount to little more than an excuse for obstinacy and ignorance toward legitimate problems and one's own inadequacies. The modern day capitalist tech-bro peddled variant of "stoicism" especially is often just used to justify a retreat inward, and a failure to recognize one's own relationships to others and one's own responsibility. Worse, it is a wholly uncritical "philosophy" that encourages people to accept the status quo rather than endeavor to make it better and change it.
  • missinglugnut 2y ago
    It's one of those traps where the people who need the philosophy the least are most drawn to it. If you're really emotionally disconnected, stoicism has an intuitive appeal because it justifies what you already do. Although, there a distinction people miss here, observing an emotion and letting it pass is far different from denying the emotion in the first place. On the opposite side, people who go through life dumping and blaming their emotions on others are very quick to label stoicism as toxic, when it's the philosophy that could help them the most. It's just one of those things, by definition we can't see our own blindspots.
• kayo_20211030 2y ago
  As I type this there are 239 comments on a piece that's 6 years old, and also pretty poor to begin with. So, stuff happens, and you just put up with it? That's anti-human. What are you? A leaf in a stream? Dammit, you have agency. Nothing good would ever have happened were we all so passive. No wonder the rich and powerful like it, nothing they want to work actually works unless you have a bunch of passive, stoical, individuals. Sheep, basically.
• codr7 2y ago
  Thoughts are very powerful, that's why visualization is such a big deal in elite sports etc. Some stoics teach that you should imagine the worst possible outcomes to shift your perception of the current (not quite as terrible) situation. Feels like a very bad idea to me.
  • vitiral 2y ago
    Have you tried it? It takes only a minute or so, what's the worst that could happen?
    • codr7 2y ago
      I prefer to spend my energy thinking about what I want instead. Even if it would make no difference in the world, it still makes me happier. But it does make a (BIG) difference, thoughts direct energy and energy manifests reality.
      • vitiral 2y ago
        How can you know what you want if the hedonic treadmill prevents one from appreciating what they already have?
• refurb 2y ago
  This is a pretty cynical view of stoicism, and not very deep. “Stoicism, on the other hand, stressed the idea that everyone is part of a large perfect whole and thus that it’s everyone’s duty to fulfill the role Fate allots.” Stoicism does not teach a lack of self-empowerment. It says nothing about what you should do with your life and does teach one should live a good life (however one defines that).
• LeroyRaz 2y ago
  This article is wonderfully written. However I feel it makes a conceptual conflation. First it describes the Greek philosophies as being essentially self help. Following that logic it would seem stocisim is not a system of ethics at all, but rather a way of dealing with struggle. Given that characterization, it seems quite bizzare to complain that stocisim provides no moral impetus to help others (a bit like complaining that a hammer - as opposed to a shovel - is a poor tool to dig holes).
• harimau777 2y ago
  Is there an interpretation of stoicism which advocates for social justice? At its core that's my issue with the philosophy: it seems like it inevitably ends up serving the status quo by dismissing any complaints about circumstances.
  • dev_by_day 2y ago
    Yes, if your interested checkout Ryan Holiday, he writes pretty extensively about this. Cato is a good example of a stoic who stood for justice, he sacrificed his life leading a resistance against the tyranny of Caesar and fighting injustice.
• dev_by_day 2y ago
  ITT is alot of people that don't seem to understand Stoicism. For the people making weird claims that its a philosophy specifically for conservatives, its not. Try checkout stoics like Ryan Holiday or Cato if your interested in seeing the emphasis on justice and being good to others as a virtue.
• pizzadog 2y ago
  At the risk of blogposting, it's been truly shocking to me over the years to see the reaction people have to stoicism. I naturally found myself stumbling into stoic/CBT-adjacent mental practices after many years of a hard upbringing and it felt like such a natural and helpful truth to me. As someone else in the thread mentioned, the Serenity Prayer encapsulates this mentality well. Then I see the comments here and elsewhere about it being a slave mentality or somehow simultaneously a privilege of the wealthy! I've puzzled over how to square this circle for a long time, and I suspect it's related to some invisible but complex nuance between how different people interpret these experiences. For me personally I find anger, anguish, lamentation, spite, etc. to be exhausting. I have let these feelings flow freely within myself during some parts of my life and it left me feeling like a husk. I could never relate to the way people say they let anger or spite fuel them, for whatever reason inside my heart they do nothing but siphon my fuel for their own ends. In this way I find stoicism extremely useful for keeping those fuel thieves away from my tank. If something happens that I did not expect, rather than raging at the circumstances, I consider what factors led them to occur and whether or not I could have prevented them. In the vast majority of cases it's never something I could have controlled and I pretty much instantly feel soothed, and if it was then I take it as a lesson to remember and move forward. What I've gathered is that this approach does nothing for a lot of people and (to put it lightly) comes off as arrogant or dismissive. I assume that the step inbetween there that I mentioned, the part where I feel soothed, does not occur in some others. I can only guess why this is. Conversely my assumption is that those others don't experience that soothing moment and so they imagine I'm just stuffing my feelings down into a pit or that I'm preforming some fantastical Vulcan mindgame with myself where I erase my emotional response entirely. I wish I had better insight into this difference. It seems to speak to some kind of interesting detail in the way humans interpret our experiences differently, but I feel like I don't even have the language to describe it.