8 ms·

I've been reading about stoicism lately (the ancient philosophy, not the adjective for lack of emotion) and I think that practicing stoics have some nice tools

• hvass 13y ago
  For an intro to stoicism you should start with Seneca's letters and Marcus Aurelius' Meditations before you jump into Guide to the Good Life (which I do not recommend, despite Derek's praise of it) Also, check out the upcoming book 'The Obstacle is the Way' by Ryan Holiday - http://www.amazon.com/The-Obstacle-Is-Way-Timeless/dp/1591846358 http://www.amazon.com/The-Obstacle-Is-Way-Timeless/dp/159184...
  • sramsay 13y ago
    Both amazing, but I think I prefer Epictetus' Discourses to either one. I'm not a big fan of Guide to the Good Life either -- mostly because I think it takes a very profound (and by no means simple or obvious) set of ideas and reduces it to a kind of intellectual fad diet. For something weightier, you might look at the works of Pierre Hadot (Philosophy as a Way of Life and What is Ancient Philosophy?), both of which contain excellent discussions of stoicism.
    • hvass 13y ago
      Check out Hadot's Inner Citadel if you haven't, also an amazing book.
  • benrhughes 13y ago
    A Guide to the Good Life has its issues, particularly around complicating simple ideas (for example, his "trichotomy of control" adds nothing at all the the basic dichotomy, other than confusion). However, he does a good job of giving a basic introduction and framing for Stoic concepts. I think it's easier to digest the Romans (particularly the concise and acerbic style of Epictetus) if you are somewhat familiar with the subject. I got much, much more from Epictetus than I did from Irvine, but he is, I think, a valuable on-ramp. I'm also not sure what the big deal is with Marcus Aurelius. Compared with The Enchiridion and even Seneca's letters, it's haphazard and dull. I'll give it another shot once I'm done with all of Seneca's letters. Personally, I would start with Irvine, then the George Long translation of The Enchiridion (it's more poetic than the Carter translation, IMO). I'm about half way through Seneca's Letters, and while enjoyable, he takes a long time to cover the same insights as Epictetus. (aside: on my 3rd or 4th reading of The Enchiridion, I wrote brief notes on each part, which you can find at http://thiscodinglife.com/dissecting-epictetus/intro http://thiscodinglife.com/dissecting-epictetus/intro)
    • wismer 13y ago
      Truly warms my heart to see there is some resonance on HN for the stoics. I came across Epictetus in a particularly low part in my life - it was this particular passage that nailed me - excuse the bad formatting/spelling. http://wismer.github.io/ http://wismer.github.io/
    • hvass 13y ago
      I wouldn't start with Epictetus just because I think some of his lines can be easily misinterpreted, for example, the line about kissing your child and thinking about his death can really put people off. I had the same initial reaction with Marcus, but honestly it might be because I didn't have the right translation (pick Gregory Hays's!!) and not enough background on the man. I would highly recommend watching this short series that mentions both Epictetus and Marcus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLD09Qa3kMk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLD09Qa3kMk I truly think you'll see the Meditations in a different way after watching this. Also, Pierre Hadot has a very good (but scholarly) analysis on it in The Inner Citadel. And for Epictetus, I always introduce him with the story of the Vietnam prisoner of war James Stockdale who in a way relied on stoic principles to endure the tortures he was inflicted. He wrote and lectured about the lessons there, Google him around.
• janj 13y ago
  The Antidote: Happiness for People Who Can't Stand Positive Thinking This book was my first introduction to stoicism. I loved the book and idea behind stoicism. I meant to find more but had forgotten about it. Thanks for the book suggestion.
• ChristianBundy 13y ago
  Here's a short excerpt from a talk by Alan Watts that I find incredibly powerful: "What if Money Was No Object" - https://youtu.be/C_sbcSRMsOc https://youtu.be/C_sbcSRMsOc If you're looking for something longer and more in-depth, the late David Foster Wallace's talk on a similar subject is incredibly sincere and motivating: "This Is Water" - http://youtu.be/dexIA_OfLzg http://youtu.be/dexIA_OfLzg
  • reshambabble 13y ago
    It's so interesting how our generation is so deeply interested in this idea - what would we do if money wasn't an issue? I really loved this video - a good reminder to feel okay to break the "traditional" structure and pursue happiness.
    • nikanj 13y ago
      I have a lot of friends who majored in the arts and humanities and graduated straight into unemployment and misery. Some of them are happy about the fact, but the majority is really resentful towards the society. They feel cheated, as they thought they'd get a low-paying job which would still allow for a modest life, but all they were offered is volunteer work. Money, it turns out, is unimportant only if your belly is full and you have a roof on top of your head.
      • caio1982 13y ago
        I majored in humanities and I'm not unemployed nor in misery. I don't feel cheated at all (never did), because society does not owe me anything since I made all the calls myself.
        • loganu 13y ago
          So, you're not friends with him them?
      • oalders 13y ago
        I studied Classical Philology. I had no idea that learning Ancient Greek and Latin would be amazing preparation for learning to write code. Hey, if you can read some Ancient Greek, you can decipher a lot of [insert computer language here]. It's probably not realistic to see a humanities degree as a meal ticket, but it can be an excellent foundation for the "real world". Getting the degree teaches you to research and to learn. Those are marketable skills you can apply to many jobs. Unless you want a career in academia, in many cases the humanities degrees aren't likely going to lead you to a job in your field of study, but they will prepare you. You just need to figure out where to apply your skills.
• nextweek2 13y ago
  My biggest problem with being happy with what I have is the lack of motivation to improve and better myself.
  • rneill 13y ago
    This is a fairly common complaint with stoicism. Just because you're happy with what you have doesn't mean you can't also be intrinsically motivated to make life better for yourself and others. But it also leaves you in the wonderful state wherein you don't mind the outcome of your efforts because you were already happy with your state to begin with. It's a fuller appreciation of what you can control and what you can't and the in-between states where you can control your inputs but not the output. You start to set goals that focus only on the actions you have complete control over and don't worry about the outcomes you can't control.
    • derefr 13y ago
      > Just because you're happy with what you have doesn't mean you can't also be intrinsically motivated to make life better for yourself and others. An important note: the clinical definition of Attention-Deficit Disorder is exactly "being unable to feel motivated, except under conditions of stress/fear/pain." A common self-medicating strategy for people unaware they have ADD, is to invite unhappiness and stress in order to derive motivation from it. If the only thing that can get you to start working on a project is the feeling of a looming deadline, you may want to get yourself checked.
      • JetSpiegel 13y ago
        That's just procrastination. Where do we draw the line?
        • npizzolato 13y ago
          Agreed 100%. Sometimes it feels like some people are trying to define every regular human action and emotion as some disease that needs to be medicated.
• njharman 13y ago
  > "wanting what you already have" Sounds very much like Taoist teachings as well. Desire, in its many forms, never results in happiness.
  • whytaka 13y ago
    How can people say this without giving the slightest reflection over their own lives and moments of happiness? I've had plenty of moments where desire-satisfaction has granted me happiness. Sometimes even without the satisfaction, the desire itself had given me a sense of worth and a life path that I found exciting and joyful.
    • derefr 13y ago
      It's mostly a problem of conflating many different emotions under the one umbrella-term of "happiness." If, by happiness, you mean contentment, then removing desire can give you that. If, by happiness, you mean relief or satisfaction or excitement, then no, removing desire will not give you those.
      • md224 13y ago
        > If, by happiness, you mean contentment, then removing desire can give you that. But would this not require, in some sense, the desire for contentment? I suppose this is just a semantic issue; somehow our usage of "desire" excludes this case (perhaps because it is so fundamental).
        • derefr 13y ago
          "Desire", when you strip away the connotations, generally just means "spikes in your dopamine system that reward you for acting toward a goal your brain associates with a previous large dopamine release." Contentment, on the other hand, is something more like "the lack of any particular goal currently requiring you to think, plan, or expend energy." Basically, they're at odds: when you have a desire, you are by definition discontented.
    • 13y ago
• sremani 13y ago
  virtue and tranquility.
• pabb 13y ago
  It's funny, I've heard of the term stoicism in the philosophical regard, but never knew what it was, and yet now I'm reading that it embodies a lot of what I've felt for years. Growing up, my family never had much, and I always had to make due with simple activities. Luckily enough I got immersed in the Internet at a young age, because I was able to inherit outdated computers, but never had the fancy toys or gadgets or games that my friends did. I had to find ways to entertain myself with very little, and since then my interests have always revolved around a very small subset of simple, low-fidelity activities. Drawing (materials are universal), weightlifting (free-weights only), programming (self explanatory).. Things that I know could never really be taken from me. As I'm preparing to graduate college, I've told friends and family that I never want to own a car, or a house. I haven't owned a bed in two years. The only major purchases I want are a decent laptop, which I consider a necessity for a software developer, and books. I want the tools I need to live and grow my skills and intellect. In that sense, I probably take the modern translation of stoicism too far. But then again, I'm easily fulfilled.
  • scott_karana 13y ago
    As long as your choices don't negatively impact yourself, or your family and friends, I'd say "keep it up!"
• caio1982 13y ago
  I'm really glad to read such comment. You do a service to other HN fellas mentioning stoicism as a way to "solve" this kind of problem. After a few years reading and studying stoic works (such as Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, already mentioned in this thread) I can say I'm finally good with myself and I could not recommend it enough for other geeks and nerds who eventually find themselves in such negative mindset. Hackers: read the old philosophers, you'll do yourself a favor, your mind will thank you. Modern life is nearly unbearable when you don't have the tools to fix it.
• tedks 13y ago
  Stoicism seems like it would be relevant to a Roman. If you had no air conditioning and very little good things, being stoic would probably make you pretty happy. We're not in ancient Rome anymore. I don't see any reason for modern humans to be stoic. It seems like a great way to stagnate. When you can't change your environment, it makes sense to change your mind to accept your environment. When you can, self-modification is harmful. It lets you accept things you could change if you worked to to change them. Stoicism seems to be at odds with a personal drive towards self-improvement. It doesn't seem relevant to modern environments where this improvement is possible.
  • itcmcgrath 13y ago
    Perhaps looking at it in a less black and white manner would show where it could help. For instance, I work with Enterprise Software but not with cars. Perhaps being Stoic towards my material possessions( such as liking my Honda and stop looking at the Maserati I don't need) while still driving towards improvements in the areas that matter, such as my relationships (family, friends, strangers) and career (software, etc)?
  • agumonkey 13y ago
    Improvement is also a very fuzzy notion, it really depends how you wanna look at things.
  • autodidakto 13y ago
    Stoicism isn't anti-improvement. Epictetus was an abused slaved, then philosophical leader. Seneca was rich and was tutor and adviser to the emperor. Marcus Aurelius was the emperor. Yes, Stoicism teaches you that you don't have (at least ultimate) control over the world. But it does emphasize that you have control over yourself. You internalize your goals: Instead of "winning the tennis championship" it's "be the best player I can possibly be despite circumstance".
  • monkeynotes 13y ago
    "Man is disturbed not by things, but by the views he takes of them." Since 'improvement' is so often a subjective quality the stoics may perhaps suggest you rebase what you consider to be self improvement. What if one could find a way of being happy regardless of 'self improvement' drives? If happiness is the objective and you can be happy without changing your environment, even if changing the environment is trivial, what's the difference?
• jacoblyles 13y ago
  The original works of Seneca and Epictetus are also surprisingly applicable to modern life, and their problems are surprisingly relatable. I recommend Seneca's "On the Shortness of Life" and Epictetus's handbook in modern translation.
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• saraid216 13y ago
  > And of course Wikipdeia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism Incidentally, if you're moved to get broad outlines of philosophical things, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy tend to be better resources: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/ http://www.iep.utm.edu/stoicism/ http://www.iep.utm.edu/stoicism/