4 ms·

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 happ

by 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?
vacri 13y ago
I don't see any reason for modern humans to be stoic We don't have the resources to keep all modern humans in the manner to which those in developed countries have become accustomed.
graeme 13y ago
Let me assure you that, having gone through a very major health crisis, stoicism is eminently useful, and practical. I have lost things that are impossible to recover. And I'm doing pretty good, thanks. There are some things you really cannot change. We can change more than we used to, but not everything. Stoicism helps. And we also change things we don't need to change. We chase after things that bring us no happiness. By allowing you to be happy with what you have, stoicism lets you seek those things that truly matter.
sramsay 13y ago
"When you can, self-modification is harmful. It lets you accept things you could change if you worked to to change them." I think "changing the things you can" (as Niebuhr once put it) is precisely the second half of the stoic idea. In fact, not changing things that by rights should be changed runs contrary to virtue, which the stoics held as the chief -- and indeed, the only -- true good.
arg01 13y ago
Your forgetting that some things can't be changed with respect to other things. I may hate the commute to work, but otherwise find my job great and my house great. I may have optomised that commute as much as possible already (audio books, a nice car, best route) but it is still the worst part of my day. If I behave more in line with stoicism then this no longer worries me as much. Sure this may stop innovation by me in that particular area but I'm still inovative in other areas and people who are better able to tackle that issue are the ones that can deal with it (if indeed there is a better soloution).
aufreak3 13y ago
Be it stoicism or any school of thought that recommends a way of life, the key fallacy to avoid fall into is that it is these principles that make you happy, or productive, or wealthy, or healthy or whatever. While such principles can be temporarily crutch for a person, over time the crutch gains the status of legs instead of people using it to learn to walk. My mind keeps coming up with generalizations all the time. For example, "the more space you have for your family, the less valuable time together you spend". Needless, useless generalizations like this about just about everything. So I've formed a mental habit of just pausing and asking "really?" .. and soon these just go poof. In other words, I automatically question the validity of any concept I construct. This way, I'm free to stick to one temporarily and have no qualms about abandoning concepts that aren't valid for me. The nice thing about Derek's post is that he's just posing the question and leaving it to the reader to ruminate on what answer would mean to them. The skill to pick up here is to ask these kinds of questions ... like all the time.

by tedks 13y ago

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?

vacri 13y ago

I don't see any reason for modern humans to be stoic We don't have the resources to keep all modern humans in the manner to which those in developed countries have become accustomed.

graeme 13y ago

Let me assure you that, having gone through a very major health crisis, stoicism is eminently useful, and practical. I have lost things that are impossible to recover. And I'm doing pretty good, thanks. There are some things you really cannot change. We can change more than we used to, but not everything. Stoicism helps. And we also change things we don't need to change. We chase after things that bring us no happiness. By allowing you to be happy with what you have, stoicism lets you seek those things that truly matter.

sramsay 13y ago

"When you can, self-modification is harmful. It lets you accept things you could change if you worked to to change them." I think "changing the things you can" (as Niebuhr once put it) is precisely the second half of the stoic idea. In fact, not changing things that by rights should be changed runs contrary to virtue, which the stoics held as the chief -- and indeed, the only -- true good.

arg01 13y ago

Your forgetting that some things can't be changed with respect to other things. I may hate the commute to work, but otherwise find my job great and my house great. I may have optomised that commute as much as possible already (audio books, a nice car, best route) but it is still the worst part of my day. If I behave more in line with stoicism then this no longer worries me as much. Sure this may stop innovation by me in that particular area but I'm still inovative in other areas and people who are better able to tackle that issue are the ones that can deal with it (if indeed there is a better soloution).

aufreak3 13y ago

Be it stoicism or any school of thought that recommends a way of life, the key fallacy to avoid fall into is that it is these principles that make you happy, or productive, or wealthy, or healthy or whatever. While such principles can be temporarily crutch for a person, over time the crutch gains the status of legs instead of people using it to learn to walk. My mind keeps coming up with generalizations all the time. For example, "the more space you have for your family, the less valuable time together you spend". Needless, useless generalizations like this about just about everything. So I've formed a mental habit of just pausing and asking "really?" .. and soon these just go poof. In other words, I automatically question the validity of any concept I construct. This way, I'm free to stick to one temporarily and have no qualms about abandoning concepts that aren't valid for me. The nice thing about Derek's post is that he's just posing the question and leaving it to the reader to ruminate on what answer would mean to them. The skill to pick up here is to ask these kinds of questions ... like all the time.