5 ms·

Stoicism is the pole that you cannot control the world, but you can control your reactions to it. It's hard work. The other pole is that you cannot control you

Stoicism is the pole that you cannot control the world, but you can control your reactions to it. It's hard work. The other pole is that you cannot control your reactions, but you can try to control the world. This is much easier to fit into a consumerist framework.

bad_haircut72 1y ago
A DNA molecule without an environment is just a glob of atoms. Information flows in both directions. On a purely human level though, you should go find some veterans with PTSD and tell them they're just not working hard enough at being stoic.
- mobilene 1y ago
  Thank you.
- hyperhello 1y ago
  I never told any veterans to work harder at being stoic, nor did I imply anyone should. That's part of a reaction you had to what I said. I can't control what you say, but I can control my reaction to you. That's what stoicism is.
  - retr0rocket 1y ago
    [dead]
  - Muromec 1y ago
    It's a good framework to survive in authoritarian country and maybe even a good one to promote as a dictator. You can in fact very often change what other people think, say and do.
    - walkabout 1y ago
      Stoicism specifies that one needs right acts, in addition to right thoughts. It’s far less passive than e.g. Russell (though I love Russell, and I even love The History of Western Philosophy in which he levels these criticisms, while many others seem to dismiss it) describes it, though treating it as purely an internal-mindset thing is certainly easier and I think a lot of people in-fact only apply those parts.
  - walkabout 1y ago
    Notably, Aurelius (at least—I’m less well-read on Epictetus and others) allows that there are automatic reactions that we can’t, realistically, control. It’s the unintentional, but controllable, maintenance of negative feelings that Stoics aim to consciously tamp down, mostly by breaking the habit of falling into those patterns of thinking in the first place. I think triggered feelings and reactions due to PTSD would tend to fall under the former, though surely a stoic approach might help reduce ongoing harm from those, as it does with more mundane things like being angry at other drivers on the highway. I mean, something in one’s attitudes and ways of thinking must be able help, and if not, guess we better stop bothering with therapy, so it’s not outlandish that stoic practice might improve even that kind of problem, though it may not be the right tool to attack the root of it. The idea that stoicism even aims to eliminate all negative emotions, or that it blames all of them on the person experiencing them, isn’t really what I’ve found.
    - j45 1y ago
      Aurelius' writings are interesting - I am struck by how many people try to relate to an emperor trying to stay grounded. It doesn't mean there isn't good in the writings, it's good to take the positive from things, with the hope that it doesn't let in any of the negative unintended. That part stands out to me though as where it's perspective might not be for the many, but the few.
      - walkabout 1y ago
        I mean, a bunch of his book is stoic epistemology, physics, and metaphysics, all of which is of dubious value. Anyone reading him is definitely going to be picking-and-choosing what they pay attention to, almost nobody today is going to go all-in on the entire edifice of the stoic system of philosophy, and nearly all readers are likely to disregard half or more of his book—as far as the pop-cultural life of the book, these large portions of it are practically invisible for a reason. I do think it’s remarkable that there’s much salvageable at all in it, given the age of the work (though a fair amount of ancient philosophy remains relevant, or at least functions as good reading and exercises along the lines of koans for developing philosophical ways of thinking, an awful lot is effectively obsolete and only of historical interest) and that it came from one of the most powerful people on the planet. It’s not often you get something with much enduring value at all from someone who also happens to be at or near the pinnacle of human hierarchies of their day. Though, in fairness, he’s mostly repackaging stuff he learned from others, it’s not exactly original thinking in the same way as the chain of works from Socrates-Plato-Aristotle, say. Still, it’d be like, I dunno, Franklin Roosevelt penning a philosophically-inclined self-help book that was still widely read and referenced beyond the year 3,000 and in languages that didn’t exist when it was written. Pretty distinctive, very few works at all in that class, and almost none from the perspective of someone that highly placed politically, despite a strong bias in general toward works from the rich and powerful being created at all, and surviving. I’d say the only way it’s likely to permanently fade is if/when “western culture”, to perhaps include near-east and Maghreb Muslim culture, fades (there’s so much overlap of the parts people like, with forms of thinking from the East, that I expect it’d have trouble co-existing with them in the same body of thought, as an actively-read item of interest)
  - mbesto 1y ago
    > but I can control my reaction to you. That's what stoicism is. I think what the parent is saying is this: Say you (hyperhello) have PTSD from a fire incident in which your face is completely disfigured. You associated this pain (emotional and physical) with the various people who yelled "FIRE" during the escape. Do you, hyperhello, truly have control over this negative reaction when someone yells "FIRE!" in your face?
- IncreasePosts 1y ago
  Is it your take that PTSD symptoms cannot be improved through any action of the individual? Is it your take that every person in therapy for PTSD so wasting their time?
  - monkeynotes 1y ago
    What if PTSD therapy focusses on accepting things you can't control and sitting with the pain? That's how I work through anxiety, and depression. I know it will never be gone, I don't try and set expectations to live without anxiety, I just try and sit with it, and accept it. Much of mental trauma is about acknowledging it, and learning to live with it. There is no cure for PTSD, even Ketamine is short acting, not a long term solution, and indeed Ketamine simply helps you sit with the suffering in a different light.
    - phkahler 1y ago
      >> There is no cure for PTSD... But there are treatments. Last I read exposure therapy and EMDR were the two main ones. I don't think I'd be a big fan of exposure until the reactions have been significantly reduced, but everyone is different. EMDR didn't do much for me, but Internal Family Systems did. CBT is also great for some people.
nemomarx 1y ago
Why are these presented as exclusive poles? In each case you should look at which one is easier to control and go for that. Why do you need a universal philosophy? Some things are self control, but some things are circumstances that you can navigate or avoid too.
- aaroninsf 1y ago
  It's not being offered as a dialectic model of reality, it's anchoring two points and providing a terrtain for analyzing consumer capitalism. With this frame in hand we can then ask questions like yours, "are there domains within which it is easier or more enjoyable or has higher personal or collective benefit, to work on the world rather than self?" The answer is certainly yes; agency is real, and we can work to maximize it. A convenient way to extend the "model" might be to tack on the "serenity prayer."
- burnished 1y ago
  Choosing to navigate or avoid negative stimulus is a choice you make about your behavior.
DaveZale 1y ago
https://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html https://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html It's proactive introspection. Stoicism can provide freedom because you can be master of yourself. Not to say that epigenetic effects aren't real.
crazygringo 1y ago
Stoicism is also another name for emotional repression and even developing a sense of emotional blindness. To be psychologically healthy, we need to listen to our emotions and process them in a healthy way. The answer is not to shut down our emotions, or to blindly give in to them, but rather to understand where they're coming from and process them accordingly.
- anechouapechou 1y ago
  This is a very common misconception. Stoics (at least in the classical sense, which is what I study) seek to classify their emotions as either positive or as passions. And through the analysis of their own opinions, using logic and the concept of aligning with nature and the common good, they seek to agree with what is correct, disagree with what is incorrect, and suspend judgment on that which is not evident. A person can only be good or bad through actions that are their own responsibility; therefore, things outside of their own responsibility (such as a Stoic's son dying) cannot make them either good or bad, but rather their reaction to the event can. The interpretation that if a Stoic suffers when experiencing the death of their own son, they are being a bad Stoic is actually completely incorrect. They will only be a bad Stoic if, from this event, they allow themselves to be carried away by the suffering that is natural to every person who has a natural affection, and start to have opinions and actions contrary to nature.
  - crazygringo 1y ago
    I'm going to push back on the idea that it's a misconception. Stoicism treats the (negative) passions as necessarily grounded in false beliefs. Whereas modern psychology treats our negative emotions as valuable messages that something is affecting our well-being and needs to be addressed. Stoicism treats negative emotions as errors. Something to be reasoned away, i.e. suppressed. Modern psychology tells us not to reason away but rather to feel fully, to accept, to process and therefore integrate and grow.
    - anechouapechou 1y ago
      Modern psychology (CBT) is built on a Stoic idea: “It’s not things that upset us, but our opinions about things.” Stoicism doesn’t tell you to repress feelings. It tells you to examine them, to look at the beliefs behind them. If the belief is false (“this event ruins my life”), you correct it; if it’s true, you accept the feeling without letting it take over. The Stoics called destructive emotions “passions,” but they also recognized healthy ones, like rational joy, caution, and goodwill. The goal isn’t emotional numbness, it’s clarity and alignment with reason and nature. So, far from emotional blindness, Stoicism actually inspired the same kind of introspection that modern psychology promotes, just with a different vocabulary. I would encourage you to read about CBT’s history and it’s influence on more modern psychology techniques. It’s likely that you are representing the Stoicism you commonly read about these days, on reddit, youtube and even on some books that take some liberties on translating it or do a bad job of it (it’s hard…). Most modern sources absolutely suck. A good translation from the original greek sources of Epictetus is very hard to come by.

bad_haircut72 1y ago

A DNA molecule without an environment is just a glob of atoms. Information flows in both directions. On a purely human level though, you should go find some veterans with PTSD and tell them they're just not working hard enough at being stoic.

mobilene 1y ago
Thank you.
hyperhello 1y ago
I never told any veterans to work harder at being stoic, nor did I imply anyone should. That's part of a reaction you had to what I said. I can't control what you say, but I can control my reaction to you. That's what stoicism is.
- retr0rocket 1y ago
  [dead]
- Muromec 1y ago
  It's a good framework to survive in authoritarian country and maybe even a good one to promote as a dictator. You can in fact very often change what other people think, say and do.
  - walkabout 1y ago
    Stoicism specifies that one needs right acts, in addition to right thoughts. It’s far less passive than e.g. Russell (though I love Russell, and I even love The History of Western Philosophy in which he levels these criticisms, while many others seem to dismiss it) describes it, though treating it as purely an internal-mindset thing is certainly easier and I think a lot of people in-fact only apply those parts.
- walkabout 1y ago
  Notably, Aurelius (at least—I’m less well-read on Epictetus and others) allows that there are automatic reactions that we can’t, realistically, control. It’s the unintentional, but controllable, maintenance of negative feelings that Stoics aim to consciously tamp down, mostly by breaking the habit of falling into those patterns of thinking in the first place. I think triggered feelings and reactions due to PTSD would tend to fall under the former, though surely a stoic approach might help reduce ongoing harm from those, as it does with more mundane things like being angry at other drivers on the highway. I mean, something in one’s attitudes and ways of thinking must be able help, and if not, guess we better stop bothering with therapy, so it’s not outlandish that stoic practice might improve even that kind of problem, though it may not be the right tool to attack the root of it. The idea that stoicism even aims to eliminate all negative emotions, or that it blames all of them on the person experiencing them, isn’t really what I’ve found.
  - j45 1y ago
    Aurelius' writings are interesting - I am struck by how many people try to relate to an emperor trying to stay grounded. It doesn't mean there isn't good in the writings, it's good to take the positive from things, with the hope that it doesn't let in any of the negative unintended. That part stands out to me though as where it's perspective might not be for the many, but the few.
    - walkabout 1y ago
      I mean, a bunch of his book is stoic epistemology, physics, and metaphysics, all of which is of dubious value. Anyone reading him is definitely going to be picking-and-choosing what they pay attention to, almost nobody today is going to go all-in on the entire edifice of the stoic system of philosophy, and nearly all readers are likely to disregard half or more of his book—as far as the pop-cultural life of the book, these large portions of it are practically invisible for a reason. I do think it’s remarkable that there’s much salvageable at all in it, given the age of the work (though a fair amount of ancient philosophy remains relevant, or at least functions as good reading and exercises along the lines of koans for developing philosophical ways of thinking, an awful lot is effectively obsolete and only of historical interest) and that it came from one of the most powerful people on the planet. It’s not often you get something with much enduring value at all from someone who also happens to be at or near the pinnacle of human hierarchies of their day. Though, in fairness, he’s mostly repackaging stuff he learned from others, it’s not exactly original thinking in the same way as the chain of works from Socrates-Plato-Aristotle, say. Still, it’d be like, I dunno, Franklin Roosevelt penning a philosophically-inclined self-help book that was still widely read and referenced beyond the year 3,000 and in languages that didn’t exist when it was written. Pretty distinctive, very few works at all in that class, and almost none from the perspective of someone that highly placed politically, despite a strong bias in general toward works from the rich and powerful being created at all, and surviving. I’d say the only way it’s likely to permanently fade is if/when “western culture”, to perhaps include near-east and Maghreb Muslim culture, fades (there’s so much overlap of the parts people like, with forms of thinking from the East, that I expect it’d have trouble co-existing with them in the same body of thought, as an actively-read item of interest)
- mbesto 1y ago
  > but I can control my reaction to you. That's what stoicism is. I think what the parent is saying is this: Say you (hyperhello) have PTSD from a fire incident in which your face is completely disfigured. You associated this pain (emotional and physical) with the various people who yelled "FIRE" during the escape. Do you, hyperhello, truly have control over this negative reaction when someone yells "FIRE!" in your face?
IncreasePosts 1y ago
Is it your take that PTSD symptoms cannot be improved through any action of the individual? Is it your take that every person in therapy for PTSD so wasting their time?
- monkeynotes 1y ago
  What if PTSD therapy focusses on accepting things you can't control and sitting with the pain? That's how I work through anxiety, and depression. I know it will never be gone, I don't try and set expectations to live without anxiety, I just try and sit with it, and accept it. Much of mental trauma is about acknowledging it, and learning to live with it. There is no cure for PTSD, even Ketamine is short acting, not a long term solution, and indeed Ketamine simply helps you sit with the suffering in a different light.
  - phkahler 1y ago
    >> There is no cure for PTSD... But there are treatments. Last I read exposure therapy and EMDR were the two main ones. I don't think I'd be a big fan of exposure until the reactions have been significantly reduced, but everyone is different. EMDR didn't do much for me, but Internal Family Systems did. CBT is also great for some people.

nemomarx 1y ago

Why are these presented as exclusive poles? In each case you should look at which one is easier to control and go for that. Why do you need a universal philosophy? Some things are self control, but some things are circumstances that you can navigate or avoid too.

aaroninsf 1y ago
It's not being offered as a dialectic model of reality, it's anchoring two points and providing a terrtain for analyzing consumer capitalism. With this frame in hand we can then ask questions like yours, "are there domains within which it is easier or more enjoyable or has higher personal or collective benefit, to work on the world rather than self?" The answer is certainly yes; agency is real, and we can work to maximize it. A convenient way to extend the "model" might be to tack on the "serenity prayer."
burnished 1y ago
Choosing to navigate or avoid negative stimulus is a choice you make about your behavior.

DaveZale 1y ago

https://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html https://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html It's proactive introspection. Stoicism can provide freedom because you can be master of yourself. Not to say that epigenetic effects aren't real.

crazygringo 1y ago

Stoicism is also another name for emotional repression and even developing a sense of emotional blindness. To be psychologically healthy, we need to listen to our emotions and process them in a healthy way. The answer is not to shut down our emotions, or to blindly give in to them, but rather to understand where they're coming from and process them accordingly.

anechouapechou 1y ago
This is a very common misconception. Stoics (at least in the classical sense, which is what I study) seek to classify their emotions as either positive or as passions. And through the analysis of their own opinions, using logic and the concept of aligning with nature and the common good, they seek to agree with what is correct, disagree with what is incorrect, and suspend judgment on that which is not evident. A person can only be good or bad through actions that are their own responsibility; therefore, things outside of their own responsibility (such as a Stoic's son dying) cannot make them either good or bad, but rather their reaction to the event can. The interpretation that if a Stoic suffers when experiencing the death of their own son, they are being a bad Stoic is actually completely incorrect. They will only be a bad Stoic if, from this event, they allow themselves to be carried away by the suffering that is natural to every person who has a natural affection, and start to have opinions and actions contrary to nature.
- crazygringo 1y ago
  I'm going to push back on the idea that it's a misconception. Stoicism treats the (negative) passions as necessarily grounded in false beliefs. Whereas modern psychology treats our negative emotions as valuable messages that something is affecting our well-being and needs to be addressed. Stoicism treats negative emotions as errors. Something to be reasoned away, i.e. suppressed. Modern psychology tells us not to reason away but rather to feel fully, to accept, to process and therefore integrate and grow.
  - anechouapechou 1y ago
    Modern psychology (CBT) is built on a Stoic idea: “It’s not things that upset us, but our opinions about things.” Stoicism doesn’t tell you to repress feelings. It tells you to examine them, to look at the beliefs behind them. If the belief is false (“this event ruins my life”), you correct it; if it’s true, you accept the feeling without letting it take over. The Stoics called destructive emotions “passions,” but they also recognized healthy ones, like rational joy, caution, and goodwill. The goal isn’t emotional numbness, it’s clarity and alignment with reason and nature. So, far from emotional blindness, Stoicism actually inspired the same kind of introspection that modern psychology promotes, just with a different vocabulary. I would encourage you to read about CBT’s history and it’s influence on more modern psychology techniques. It’s likely that you are representing the Stoicism you commonly read about these days, on reddit, youtube and even on some books that take some liberties on translating it or do a bad job of it (it’s hard…). Most modern sources absolutely suck. A good translation from the original greek sources of Epictetus is very hard to come by.