Stoicism: Indifference is a power(aeon.co)
aeon.co
Stoicism: Indifference is a power
https://aeon.co/essays/why-stoicism-is-one-of-the-best-mind-hacks-ever-devised
211 comments
I have this great collection from 1901 "World's Best Essays" -- 9 tomes. Everything from Seneca to Adam Smith.
It's sad how much knowledge and social/ethical advancement is being forgotten. Our schools and universities are failing society. We're just going to keep making the same mistakes.
Edit: 10 volumes.
It's sad how much knowledge and social/ethical advancement is being forgotten. Our schools and universities are failing society. We're just going to keep making the same mistakes.
Edit: 10 volumes.
It's not being forgotten. It was never widely known to begin with. Intellectual elites still know it, and if anything they've probably been growing relative to the entire population.
I feel like at best one could argue that those elites have less influence on the deciders of the world (at least those that are not part of them).
I feel like at best one could argue that those elites have less influence on the deciders of the world (at least those that are not part of them).
This beast? https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001438712
Any recommendations?
Any recommendations?
All 10 volumes free of HathiTrust's walled garden (i.e., available as full PDF downloads without having to be a member of a "partner institution"):
https://archive.org/details/worldsbestessays01brew https://archive.org/details/worldsbestessays02brew https://archive.org/details/worldsbestessays03brew https://archive.org/details/worldsbestessays04brew https://archive.org/details/worldsbestessays05brew https://archive.org/details/worldsbestessays06brew https://archive.org/details/worldsbestessays07brew https://archive.org/details/worldsbestessays08brew https://archive.org/details/worldsbestessays09brew https://archive.org/details/worldsbestessays10brew
https://archive.org/details/worldsbestessays01brew https://archive.org/details/worldsbestessays02brew https://archive.org/details/worldsbestessays03brew https://archive.org/details/worldsbestessays04brew https://archive.org/details/worldsbestessays05brew https://archive.org/details/worldsbestessays06brew https://archive.org/details/worldsbestessays07brew https://archive.org/details/worldsbestessays08brew https://archive.org/details/worldsbestessays09brew https://archive.org/details/worldsbestessays10brew
in zsh:
for i in {01..10}; do curl -LO https://archive.org/download/worldsbestessays${i}brew/worldsbestessays${i}brew.pdf; doneThis is valid bash too.
(If you don't know, you're probably running bash.)
(If you don't know, you're probably running bash.)
In PowerShell:
1..10 |%{ $s = 'worldsbestessays{0:d2}brew' -f $_; iwr "https://archive.org/download/$s/$s.pdf" -O "$s.pdf" }
(% -> ForEach-Object; -f -> string format operator; iwr -> Invoke-WebRequest; -O -> -OutputFile parameter)Is there a kindle friendly version?
Based on the "Full Text", it looks like they used an automatic OCR to obtain the text from the PDFs, so they are full of many spelling and formatting mistakes. I prefer to get the B/W pdf and split it into files that are small enough not to lag on the Kindle hardware (I have the 2nd generation).
It was hard to find so thought I'd share. First go to the full-screen page, then click the "about this book" icon ("i" within a circle). There are links to the following:
PDF
Plain
Text
DAISY
ePub
Send to Kindle
Look on the right side of the above links
It's always been there and is pretty heavily subsidized - it's good enough stuff that the actual intelligentsia ( as opposed to .. tourists like myself ) considers it a critical resource. It doesn't cost that much to preserve, either. What do you think the old guys at, say, Cambridge study? You see the odd Classics scholar on BookTv now and again, and it's ( for me ) riveting stuff.
It's just that mass culture has blown up so big so fast - driven by technological change - that it seems to get smaller.
It doesn't help that the Stoics were explicitly targeted by the Christians early in the Christianized Byzantine Roman Empire. You can see this in action in YouTube videos of Christopher Hitchens debating various Christian thinkers.
It's just that mass culture has blown up so big so fast - driven by technological change - that it seems to get smaller.
It doesn't help that the Stoics were explicitly targeted by the Christians early in the Christianized Byzantine Roman Empire. You can see this in action in YouTube videos of Christopher Hitchens debating various Christian thinkers.
Doh! I thought I was onto something when I read Bertrand Russell critise the Stoics and thought "Don't you get it fool! To them, life is like football: play hard, play fair, that's what counts".
And, as I should have expected, Adam Smith has anticipated us all. I find it pretty funny that Smith doesn't even get a mention in Russell's history of western philosophy.
And, as I should have expected, Adam Smith has anticipated us all. I find it pretty funny that Smith doesn't even get a mention in Russell's history of western philosophy.
I suspect Smith was ahead of Russel at his best. As I recall, Smith gets good treatment by many other historians.
This reminds me of a quote by Renier Knizia, the boardgame designer, about playing boardgames: "When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning".
Reading that felt strangely liberating. It's a refreshing and eloquent reiteration of the whole idea of the goal being the journey and vice versa. Contrary to what modern society has instilled in us..
Society sure loves mixed signals. I always had the impression the modern culture tries to push exactly the "journey is the goal" idea into people, and I vehemently dislike it. To use a silly example, if I want to eat pizza, I do want to get the goddamn pizza, I definitely don't want to "enjoy the journey" of calling up the joint and placing the order.
Or in more general terms, focusing on the journey instead of the goal leads to complete detachment from reality - running in circles and enjoying the patterns of your own thoughts, like a stoned hippie. It's vegetation, not life.
I do read Adam Smith's quote differently - the way I understand it, it says to focus on a goal, but to derive happiness from the process and make that happiness independent of whether or not the goal will be ultimately achieved. An impossible thing to do in full, but definitely worth pursuing.
Or in more general terms, focusing on the journey instead of the goal leads to complete detachment from reality - running in circles and enjoying the patterns of your own thoughts, like a stoned hippie. It's vegetation, not life.
I do read Adam Smith's quote differently - the way I understand it, it says to focus on a goal, but to derive happiness from the process and make that happiness independent of whether or not the goal will be ultimately achieved. An impossible thing to do in full, but definitely worth pursuing.
Wow, that's a really interesting point. I've definitely seen the "enjoying the patterns of your own thought" thing with Leo from Zen Habits for example. He seems to rehash previous articles all the time, and I haven't heard a new thought come from him in years. No disrespect to him, he's probably found his contentment, but just an observation.
>running in circles and enjoying the patterns of your own thoughts
Sounds pretty attractive to me
Sounds pretty attractive to me
As long as the thoughts are helpful, that can be attractive for a short period. Often, they're not. Easy to get caught up in, and, even if they're positive, there is a big wide world out there that we have to engage in on some level, if only to satisfy our basic needs.
Edit to add: Just noticed one of your other comments, on paying attention to driving :)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13002601
Edit to add: Just noticed one of your other comments, on paying attention to driving :)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13002601
For a while, yes. But that's essentially wireheading without the wire ;). Feels pretty shallow to me.
(Then again, we wouldn't have most of our problems in this world if we just stuck to being stoned hippie self-wireheaded cavedwellers ;).)
(Then again, we wouldn't have most of our problems in this world if we just stuck to being stoned hippie self-wireheaded cavedwellers ;).)
Because said instillment has been done to give the industries and outlet for their products. that we should always be wanting something new, something "better" (as defined by the industries, not you or me). Turn on a TV, radio, read a magazine, newspaper, or even web sites, and we get carped bombed by this message.
Truly forgotten. I have read a number of works by Smith but never came across this one. Would be adding this to me reading-list.
On a side note, this sounds a lot like The Bhagvad Gita[1]. Is there a relationship between these two works, or is it just great minds thinking alike?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita#Karma_yoga
[EDIT]: Grammer
On a side note, this sounds a lot like The Bhagvad Gita[1]. Is there a relationship between these two works, or is it just great minds thinking alike?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita#Karma_yoga
[EDIT]: Grammer
*Grammar
(Sorry)
(Sorry)
Even if you believe the importance is to have played well, you can still fall into the trap of regretting how you played before.
The mind can generate demons in most any form.
The mind can generate demons in most any form.
The thing is to recognize them as demons and ignore them. That's the ... fundamental idea behind Stoicism.
i mean that is just fantastic. ive believed that for so long and never realized it. thank you so much for posting.
Wow. I do not have much to say except that these lines have made me understand a lot. Or maybe it has always already been there but never formulated so clearly and poignant. Thanks!
[deleted]
[deleted]
OT, but that dude sure liked commas.
An alternative definition:
> Stoicism means never having to say, "Gee, I really lost my sh*t back there."
> Stoicism means never having to say, "Gee, I really lost my sh*t back there."
I was only recently introduced to stoicism as a philosophy on a run.
I was asked what my technique is during a run, do I concentrate on pain or ignore it. Of course there isn't always pain and pain during a run can vary greatly, so I explained my answer is simply, yes. I have tried everything and nothing works, I explained like everyone some days I dominate and some days I struggle, but I'm always thankful for my character building days and hopeful I'll have new thought processes to try.
I don't know if it's stoic or not, but a cool way to be introduced to the philosophy. Then, I explained a specific thought I sometimes embrace during very difficult runs, I remember when I did a back to back half/full marathons, and on day 2 I was feeling great like there was nothing I couldn't do and just before the race I was introduced to a 67 year old cancer survivor running her first marathon, to this day the thought brings chills and humbles me.
I was asked what my technique is during a run, do I concentrate on pain or ignore it. Of course there isn't always pain and pain during a run can vary greatly, so I explained my answer is simply, yes. I have tried everything and nothing works, I explained like everyone some days I dominate and some days I struggle, but I'm always thankful for my character building days and hopeful I'll have new thought processes to try.
I don't know if it's stoic or not, but a cool way to be introduced to the philosophy. Then, I explained a specific thought I sometimes embrace during very difficult runs, I remember when I did a back to back half/full marathons, and on day 2 I was feeling great like there was nothing I couldn't do and just before the race I was introduced to a 67 year old cancer survivor running her first marathon, to this day the thought brings chills and humbles me.
> I was asked what my technique is during a run, do I concentrate on pain or ignore it.
There is a great story that I took a liking to, it centers around the idea that "this too shall pass"[0]. It resonated with me because regardless of how (un)happy you are, it shall pass, a new day will begin. The current state is simply current, it does not resonate over a span of a week, or month, year, decade, etc. Our current state should be approached in a stateless manner as to refrain being too high or too low.
In that frame of reference, all success/failure is part of the journey and doesn't defy ourselves.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_too_shall_pass
There is a great story that I took a liking to, it centers around the idea that "this too shall pass"[0]. It resonated with me because regardless of how (un)happy you are, it shall pass, a new day will begin. The current state is simply current, it does not resonate over a span of a week, or month, year, decade, etc. Our current state should be approached in a stateless manner as to refrain being too high or too low.
In that frame of reference, all success/failure is part of the journey and doesn't defy ourselves.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_too_shall_pass
> Do I concentrate on pain or ignore it. Of course there isn't always pain and pain during a run can vary greatly, so I explained my answer is simply, yes. I have tried everything and nothing works
I always remember my first motorbike accident (vs Bus), my foot was p mangled. I remember the first burst of the pain, I screamed a bit, and I distinctly remember thinking "So this is why people scream. Not because it makes things better, but because there's nothing else to do".
I always remember my first motorbike accident (vs Bus), my foot was p mangled. I remember the first burst of the pain, I screamed a bit, and I distinctly remember thinking "So this is why people scream. Not because it makes things better, but because there's nothing else to do".
This 'hack' is known to drug addicts for centuries. Cyclic withdrawal from the drug to increase potency. Stoicism is the same principal used to recalibrate hedonic treadmill so you don't have to keep running faster and faster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill
The problem is that we are hard wired to always want more. It requires constant reflection to short circuit this tendency.
> It requires constant reflection to short circuit this tendency.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/dhamma...
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/dhamma...
Don't give way to heedlessness
or to intimacy
with sensual delight —
for a heedful person,
absorbed in [concentration],
attains an abundance of ease.
When the wise person drives out
heedlessness
with heedfulness,
having climbed the high tower
of discernment,
sorrow-free,
he observes the sorrowing crowd —
as the enlightened man,
having scaled
a summit,
the fools on the ground below.Isn't there a valid distinction between the joy of making genuine progress in life and mere pleasure such as that derived from drugs or alcohol?
This is a question of virtue versus pleasure which is much explored by the Stoics because a contemporary, competing movement was Epicureanism, which extolled pleasure.
OP is referring, however, to the "life hack" promoted by the article's author which suggests keeping our baseline low so that we are constantly surprised to the upside.
OP is referring, however, to the "life hack" promoted by the article's author which suggests keeping our baseline low so that we are constantly surprised to the upside.
The reflection itself becomes easier and more automatic with practice.
The Serenity Prayer popular in 12-step programs is the tldr; of Stoicism I keep in mind:
Grant me the serenity
To accept the things I cannot change;
Courage to change the things I can;
And wisdom to know the difference.
Grant me the serenity
To accept the things I cannot change;
Courage to change the things I can;
And wisdom to know the difference.
I like a quote from Shogun by James Clavell (it's about mediaval japan getting discovered by a westerner for the first time, it is incredibly without exaggeration).
“Karma is the beginning of knowledge. Next is patience. Patience is very important. The strong are the patient ones, Anjin-san. patience means holding back your inclination to the seven emotions: hate, adoration, joy, anxiety, anger, grief, fear. If you don't give way to the seven, you're patient, then you'll soon understand all manner of things and be in harmony with Eternity.”
“Karma is the beginning of knowledge. Next is patience. Patience is very important. The strong are the patient ones, Anjin-san. patience means holding back your inclination to the seven emotions: hate, adoration, joy, anxiety, anger, grief, fear. If you don't give way to the seven, you're patient, then you'll soon understand all manner of things and be in harmony with Eternity.”
I do find myself wondering how accurate that book was regarding feudal Japan...
It is historical fiction. blackthorne did exist, did get samurai status and estate, did build ships for Toranaga (Tokugawa Ieyasu). The characters are real and James Clavell spent 4 years in Japan researching and writing the book. His depiction was rather accurate, though of course exaggerated and romanticized.
http://www.columbia.edu/~hds2/learning/Learning_from_shogun_...
http://www.columbia.edu/~hds2/learning/Learning_from_shogun_...
I couldn't agree more.
In so many situations in life, it really only comes down to how you view the situation.
If you see it as a pain in the ass and horrible, it is.
If you see it as a challenge and enjoyable and something to learn from, it is.
Your happiness really is your choice.
In so many situations in life, it really only comes down to how you view the situation.
If you see it as a pain in the ass and horrible, it is.
If you see it as a challenge and enjoyable and something to learn from, it is.
Your happiness really is your choice.
This is true. However, it's also true that your attitude towards things is complex and not fully in your control. Hence PTSD, trauma, phobias, etc. It does mean, though, that by trying to modify your attitude over time, you can become happier.
"For the ordinary person everything is a blessing or a curse, for the warrior there are only challenges."
As my acquaintance Bob Bitchin is famous for saying, "The only difference between an ordeal and an adventure is attitude."
I dunno, I'd have thought the major difference there is tense. It's an ordeal while it's happening; it's an adventure once it's over.
The point is to reframe the ordeal as an adventure as it is happening. Two people can face the same circumstances, yet one will be challenged and the other miserable. Be the first.
I see no reason why I can't have gone through an ordeal in the past or currently be on an adventure. It's probably easier to look back at ordeals and call them adventures because your state of mind is now positive, but at the time it was an ordeal because you had a negative state of mind. It's rarer to have a positive state of mind while dealing with something and looking back with a negative state of mind...
I dunno, I'd have thought the major difference there is tense. It's an ordeal while it's happening; it's an adventure once it's over.
Not really - it's about mental reframing. I was in the hills yesterday, moving fast with 45lbs on my back. Many people don't like cold, they avoid it and fear it. But in my mind the cold is my friend, it keeps me awake and alert. Many people, even serious runners, hate and avoid uphills, but in my mind they are a gift, sent to make me stronger. Teach yourself to believe these things - actually say them out loud - and your perspective on what is an ordeal will surely change.
Not really - it's about mental reframing. I was in the hills yesterday, moving fast with 45lbs on my back. Many people don't like cold, they avoid it and fear it. But in my mind the cold is my friend, it keeps me awake and alert. Many people, even serious runners, hate and avoid uphills, but in my mind they are a gift, sent to make me stronger. Teach yourself to believe these things - actually say them out loud - and your perspective on what is an ordeal will surely change.
Who remembers (or even saw) the awesome 'Monkey'[1][2] that drilled the following into every kid who watched it:
> Tathagata Buddha, the Father Buddha, said, "With our thoughts, we make the world."
1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_(TV_series)
2 https://youtu.be/hXgeqhZFzBg
> Tathagata Buddha, the Father Buddha, said, "With our thoughts, we make the world."
1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_(TV_series)
2 https://youtu.be/hXgeqhZFzBg
[deleted]
[deleted]
This is a perspective which is easier to pull off in the first world.
Do you really imagine that everyone not in the first world is constantly suffering?
That is a first-world perspective: Claiming that only first-world-ers can be happy through adversity.
That is a first-world perspective: Claiming that only first-world-ers can be happy through adversity.
Claiming that only first-world-ers can be happy through adversity.
I think the claim is that it's easier to find first-world-ers which experience less adversity.
I think the claim is that it's easier to find first-world-ers which experience less adversity.
>it's easier to find first-world-ers which experience less adversity.
What kind of adversity?
What kind of adversity?
> Do you really imagine that everyone not in the first world is constantly suffering?
Of course. Water sanitation is a big thing. Access to affordable food, the list goes on ...
Of course. Water sanitation is a big thing. Access to affordable food, the list goes on ...
Happiness is relative, not absolute. If not, our peasant ancestors surely would've killed themselves out of depression.
[deleted]
The misery of one's life has no predictive power on the likelihood of suicide.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Funny you would say that. I'm in West Africa right now, moving through some of the poorest countries in the world.
I would say, on the whole, people here are happier than people in Australia / Canada / USA (where I have lived).
Obviously there are some severely sick or malnourished people where that is not true, but it's actually extremely uncommon. There is a lot of food and water here.
I would say, on the whole, people here are happier than people in Australia / Canada / USA (where I have lived).
Obviously there are some severely sick or malnourished people where that is not true, but it's actually extremely uncommon. There is a lot of food and water here.
Epictetus was a slave with a lame leg (possibly intentionally hobbled so he could not escape), and still managed to espouse the same ideas.
I'd bare in mind that when stoicism was first concocted that the entire world was 3rd world
I'm not knocking stoicism, it's a great outlook. But it asks us to have some perspective. A weakness of Stoicism is that it can allow people to attribute too much of thier emotional and intellectual success to thier own powers, when lack of physical comfort can be a limiting factor on having any intellectual life at all.
You should remember that stoicism was concieved amongst the elite of their time and place, who worried least.
Modern population density also makes comparisons of the contemporary 3rd world with ancient Greece rather far-fetched.
You should remember that stoicism was concieved amongst the elite of their time and place, who worried least.
Modern population density also makes comparisons of the contemporary 3rd world with ancient Greece rather far-fetched.
> You should remember that stoicism was concieved amongst the elite of their time and place, who worried least.
If you read Seneca, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, three of the main authors of the Stoa, that is probably the last conclusion you would come to. Seneca was accused of conspiracy and forced to suicide by Nero. Epictetus was a slave who was "so poor that he didn't have to lock up his house". Marcus Aurelius spent the last years of his life (when he wrote the "Meditations") on the battlefield. They were meant as self-reassurance in a very troubled time.
>Modern population density also makes comparisons of the contemporary 3rd world with ancient Greece rather far-fetched.
Rome, btw. Which was already relatively densely populated.
If you read Seneca, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, three of the main authors of the Stoa, that is probably the last conclusion you would come to. Seneca was accused of conspiracy and forced to suicide by Nero. Epictetus was a slave who was "so poor that he didn't have to lock up his house". Marcus Aurelius spent the last years of his life (when he wrote the "Meditations") on the battlefield. They were meant as self-reassurance in a very troubled time.
>Modern population density also makes comparisons of the contemporary 3rd world with ancient Greece rather far-fetched.
Rome, btw. Which was already relatively densely populated.
>when lack of physical comfort can be a limiting factor on having any intellectual life at all.
This can be said about decadence also!
This can be said about decadence also!
Wikipedia: When Demetrius of Phalerum conducted a population census [of Athens] in 317 BC the population was 21,000 free citizens, plus 10,000 resident aliens and 400,000 slaves.
How do you prevent an uprising with those numbers?
Many greek slaves had decent enough lives, especially if they were educated, they might be running their masters business and have quite a lot to lose in a rebellion and not much of an upside. Greek slavery was not at all like the antebellum South.
Maybe a slave's life in that society was not as bad as you think.
Centuries of internalized repression.
Probably not; the ancient Greeks generally didn't allow their slaves to have children of their own, so few were born into slavery.
Funny you should say that. I am driving through West Africa right now and having the time of my life.
Which means it's completely applicable for the majority of HN readers.
Even supposing you're right, what's your point?
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I believe thats a ridiculous philosophy that denies the suffering of billions of people all over the world.
And even worse encourages them to be satisfied and tolerant of their repression and not take action.
Why vote? Why criticise? Why try to fight injustice?
This is what Tyrants want people to believe.
I think negative feelings exist for a reason whether its internal or external reasons and the only healthy way to handle them is not to try to change them into some positive force, but bear it until you can change it.
And even worse encourages them to be satisfied and tolerant of their repression and not take action.
Why vote? Why criticise? Why try to fight injustice?
This is what Tyrants want people to believe.
I think negative feelings exist for a reason whether its internal or external reasons and the only healthy way to handle them is not to try to change them into some positive force, but bear it until you can change it.
The parent's comment is actually incorrect: what he described is not Stoicism. Stoicism is the philosophy whereby you accept things that are outside your control and view them with indifference.
In contrast, the examples you gave are situations in which the person does have some manner of control, no matter how small. Even those oppressed by tyrants can rise up and overthrow them.
In contrast, the examples you gave are situations in which the person does have some manner of control, no matter how small. Even those oppressed by tyrants can rise up and overthrow them.
Could you give an example of something that is completely outside control, that we need to just accept?
It's interesting that ivm's repoiste wasn't even hard.
But also completely outside your control is the wrong bar. You should triage and fix the things that are most fixable. And even then, there is no point wallowing in angst when fate stymies your efforts.
But also completely outside your control is the wrong bar. You should triage and fix the things that are most fixable. And even then, there is no point wallowing in angst when fate stymies your efforts.
I agree with you. But since enraged_camel said
> In contrast, the examples you gave are situations in which the person does have some manner of control, no matter how small.
I thought it could be interesting to ask for clarification of what needs to be accepted according to that guideline.
> In contrast, the examples you gave are situations in which the person does have some manner of control, no matter how small.
I thought it could be interesting to ask for clarification of what needs to be accepted according to that guideline.
Death.
There are ongoing efforts to defeat death.
Postpone, it will never be defeated on the scale of the universe.
Have hope! Given enough time, perhaps we can figure out how to hop on over to the next one.
[deleted]
Ancient greek stoicists didn't retreat from social duties. The core virtues of stoicism are the opposite of what you wrote.
They would take part on actions against injustices. But they would try to be guided by reason rather than emotions.
They would take part on actions against injustices. But they would try to be guided by reason rather than emotions.
I dont see how anything I said disagrees with stoicism?
My beef is with the pop philosophy idea of 'your happiness is your choice'.
My beef is with the pop philosophy idea of 'your happiness is your choice'.
Apologies. I thought you took the previous comment as a definition for what is stoicism.
I think the stoic would say that other people's suffering, or in just political systems, or whatever other bad event that happens doesn't affect their own happiness. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try to do better, or to help. They're separate problems.
I can give to charity, and be happy with my own life at the same time, even knowing that others are suffering.
I can give to charity, and be happy with my own life at the same time, even knowing that others are suffering.
Unfortunately, you're misunderstanding stoicism. It's a very different way of looking at life, that can take a very long time to grasp.
You should read up on Cato the younger, who for generations was held up by stoics as an example of a very virtuous person, and his fight against Caesar and tyranny.
You should read up on Cato the younger, who for generations was held up by stoics as an example of a very virtuous person, and his fight against Caesar and tyranny.
[deleted]
Coincidence, or life maybe, is just incredible. I bought "A guide to the good life" a couple of days ago, and started reading it 2 hours ago. I finished the first two chapters, and checked hacker news for the first time today, this post was in the top 10...Good article, even better writing. Cheers.
That book was my first introduction into stoicism. Really enjoyed it.
Highly recommend 'Meditations' next
Highly recommend 'Meditations' next
Maybe it isn't strictly sticking to the definition of stoicism I've found this effective, surprisingly, in road rage or what some would call bullying situations. When someone is getting aggressive, I have just stayed serious, calm and looked slightly determined. I keep eye contact and try to think about being bored as well. When bully-types blow up at a stranger, they usually do it to someone that they think will back down. When they don't, they get confused.
Similarly I find it useful when some little thing is irritating me. I can't remember where I read it, I think it was related to Marcus Aurelius, but basically the idea that when something negative comes up, either say/do something, or let it go.
That person who just cut in line in front of you? Say something, or let it go. That guy on the plane obnoxiously tilting his seat way too far back? Say something or let it go.
As soon as I think that to myself, I let go and feel a wave of indifference and serenity.
These are of course pretty minor examples, but also really common everyday occurrences. Like, practice.
That person who just cut in line in front of you? Say something, or let it go. That guy on the plane obnoxiously tilting his seat way too far back? Say something or let it go.
As soon as I think that to myself, I let go and feel a wave of indifference and serenity.
These are of course pretty minor examples, but also really common everyday occurrences. Like, practice.
Bullys or gorillas, same diff?
A gorilla could back up the initial bluff. I look pretty mild mannered but in my youth, I fought a lot in high school. In college and just after, I usually stayed out of it but there were quite a few of my buddies who took a bit longer to learn and thus quite a few weekends included a bar fight here or there. Point being that I'd try to avoid it but if a person moved the situation to a fight, I'm not tough guy but I can handle myself okay. Bullies don't often target someone they think might be able to handle them.
The "Obstacle is The Way" is a very popular book and now sits on my nightstand. I have drawn a lot of strength from it as I endure difficult struggles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Obstacle_Is_the_Way
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Obstacle_Is_the_Way
This seems like a decidedly un-Stoic statement:
"Stockdale rejected the false optimism proffered by Christianity, because he knew, from direct observation, that false hope is how you went insane in that prison."
Perhaps the author is interjecting something.
Stoicism and Christianity share many traits. Consider, as but one example, this statement by James:
"Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything."
"Stockdale rejected the false optimism proffered by Christianity, because he knew, from direct observation, that false hope is how you went insane in that prison."
Perhaps the author is interjecting something.
Stoicism and Christianity share many traits. Consider, as but one example, this statement by James:
"Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything."
This reminds me of a part of Taleb's "The Black Swan", which I've been rereading in light of recent events.
In it, Taleb describes how a process or event can be misperceived as strengthening those who go through it, when actually it weakens all of them, killing some.
His example is submitting a cohort of rats to radiation. As they are subjected to higher and higher levels of radiation, more will die, the ones who are naturally stronger will survive. Our cohort will appear stronger and stronger as the radiation increases and the dead drop out of the group. But crucially, all will have been weaker after the radiation than before it.
But since we observed a stronger group the more we increased the radiation, we may say that it "hardened" them, in the sense of "that which doesn't kill one makes one stronger".
In it, Taleb describes how a process or event can be misperceived as strengthening those who go through it, when actually it weakens all of them, killing some.
His example is submitting a cohort of rats to radiation. As they are subjected to higher and higher levels of radiation, more will die, the ones who are naturally stronger will survive. Our cohort will appear stronger and stronger as the radiation increases and the dead drop out of the group. But crucially, all will have been weaker after the radiation than before it.
But since we observed a stronger group the more we increased the radiation, we may say that it "hardened" them, in the sense of "that which doesn't kill one makes one stronger".
So why is it? The article didn't really answer the question, for all its meandering through history.
Does anyone know of a good and concise summary of the main points of Stoicism?
Does anyone know of a good and concise summary of the main points of Stoicism?
Epictetus's handbook is a quick read. http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html
Thank you, that is a quick read. I found a very nice Greek version as well, I'll read that.
The Wikipedia article is a fair summary I think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism.
You could just try reading Aurelius' Meditations. It's quite a short book. There is an English translation at http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2680.
Not sure if it will change your life but it certainly brings some things into focus.
You could just try reading Aurelius' Meditations. It's quite a short book. There is an English translation at http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2680.
Not sure if it will change your life but it certainly brings some things into focus.
Seconded,
but the Gutenberg translation is trash. I much prefer the George Long translation, available for free here: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Thoughts_of_the_Emperor_M...
I'm also pretty sure Meditations is available free on the Kindle store.
but the Gutenberg translation is trash. I much prefer the George Long translation, available for free here: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Thoughts_of_the_Emperor_M...
I'm also pretty sure Meditations is available free on the Kindle store.
I think trash might be a bit strong. But I'll agree that it's not the easiest of editions to read. Thanks for the link to the other one.
> I think trash might be a bit strong
Unfortunately, the Gutenberg version is mangled in places. Ctrl-F for the "~" character, or check out this example:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2680/2680-h/2680-h.htm#link2H...
Unfortunately, the Gutenberg version is mangled in places. Ctrl-F for the "~" character, or check out this example:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2680/2680-h/2680-h.htm#link2H...
https://howtobeastoic.wordpress.com/stoicism-101/
https://philosophy-of-cbt.com/2012/10/18/the-system-of-stoic...
And "Stoicism and the Art of Happiness" by Donald Robertson is great book.
https://philosophy-of-cbt.com/2012/10/18/the-system-of-stoic...
And "Stoicism and the Art of Happiness" by Donald Robertson is great book.
The most concise original text is the Enchiridion. I would link but I'm on my phone now. It's a wonderful read.
This is thoroughly encyclopedic, so not concise as you ask for, but it may nevertheless interest you: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/
>It is our attitude toward events, not events themselves, which we can control. Nothing is by its own nature calamitous -- even death is terrible only if we fear it.
>There is only one way to happiness and that is to cease worrying about things which are beyond the power or our will.
-Epictetus
>There is only one way to happiness and that is to cease worrying about things which are beyond the power or our will.
-Epictetus
Nice article. A little off topic, but the book "A Guide to a Good Life. Writings of Marcus Aurelius" is a fantastic read. He was one of the last "good" Roman Emporers, and his ideas on Stoicism are excellent.
I always find the poem "If" the epitome of (British) Stoicism.
Enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWvcwVWCcnY
Enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWvcwVWCcnY
This is a fantastic talk about Stoicism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seLLJP3H1FU
Indifference - bad choice of word. It makes it sound like apathy.
Not at all. Indifference is quite a different thing. Apathy is pretty much the opposite of Stoicism.
Here is a paragraph from Marcus Aurelius:
XVII. So live as indifferent to the world and all worldly objects, as
one who liveth by himself alone upon some desert hill. For whether here, or there, if the whole world be but as one town, it matters not much for the place. Let them behold and see a man, that is a man indeed, living according to the true nature of man. If they cannot bear with me, let them kill me. For better were it to die, than so to live as they would have thee.
Remember, Aurelius was a soldier and emperor. These are not the words of someone given to apathy. It's all about taking control of oneself.
Here is a paragraph from Marcus Aurelius:
XVII. So live as indifferent to the world and all worldly objects, as
one who liveth by himself alone upon some desert hill. For whether here, or there, if the whole world be but as one town, it matters not much for the place. Let them behold and see a man, that is a man indeed, living according to the true nature of man. If they cannot bear with me, let them kill me. For better were it to die, than so to live as they would have thee.
Remember, Aurelius was a soldier and emperor. These are not the words of someone given to apathy. It's all about taking control of oneself.
This may be the result of translation, right? Who says the translator has really thought if indifference is the right word in this sentence.
True enough, but in the common, modern use of the word 'indifference' can be a synonym for 'apathy'...
I don't mind the choice of the word, but if you don't then "equanimity" might suite you better.
Maybe Equinimity could be a better option?
heard it hundreds of times during my vipassana retreat.
heard it hundreds of times during my vipassana retreat.
That is a much better choice of word. Where "indifference" connotes negatively (not caring about something you should care about), "equanimity" connotes very positively (maintaining an even temper and a mind unclouded by instinctual reaction in circumstances where others fall to rage or terror; "keeping your head when all about you are losing theirs").
For an introduction on stoicism as applied to our current life: "A Guide to the Good Life" by William Irvin
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5617966-a-guide-to-the-g...
Ecclesiastes (contained in the Tanakh and the Old Testament) has a streak of stoicism. Written around 25 centuries ago, author unknown. Here is the NJB translation of a part of 1 and 2:
"I, Qoheleth, have reigned over Israel in Jerusalem. Wisely I have applied myself to investigation and exploration of everything that happens under heaven. What a wearisome task God has given humanity to keep us busy! I have seen everything that is done under the sun: how futile it all is, mere chasing after the wind! What is twisted cannot be straightened, what is not there cannot be counted.
I thought to myself: I have acquired a greater stock of wisdom than anyone before me in Jerusalem. I myself have mastered every kind of wisdom and science. I have applied myself to understanding philosophy and science, stupidity and folly, and I now realise that all this too is chasing after the wind. Much wisdom, much grief; the more knowledge, the more sorrow.
I thought to myself, 'Very well, I will try pleasure and see what enjoyment has to offer.' And this was futile too. This laughter, I reflected, is a madness, this pleasure no use at all. I decided to hand my body over to drinking wine, my mind still guiding me in wisdom; I resolved to embrace folly, to discover the best way for people to spend their days under the sun. I worked on a grand scale: built myself palaces, planted vineyards; made myself gardens and orchards, planting every kind of fruit tree in them; had pools made for watering the young trees of my plantations. I bought slaves, male and female, had home-born slaves as well; herds and flocks I had too, more than anyone in Jerusalem before me. I amassed silver and gold, the treasures of kings and provinces; acquired singers, men and women, and every human luxury, chest upon chest of it. So I grew great, greater than anyone in Jerusalem before me; nor did my wisdom leave me. I denied my eyes nothing that they desired, refused my heart no pleasure, for I found all my hard work a pleasure, such was the return for all my efforts.
I then reflected on all that my hands had achieved and all the effort I had put into its achieving. What futility it all was, what chasing after the wind! There is nothing to be gained under the sun. My reflections then turned to wisdom, stupidity and folly. For instance, what can the successor of a king do? What has been done already.
More is to be gained from wisdom than from folly, just as one gains more from light than from darkness; this, of course, I see: The wise have their eyes open, the fool walks in the dark. No doubt! But I know, too, that one fate awaits them both. 'Since the fool's fate', I thought to myself, 'will be my fate too, what is the point of my having been wise?' I realised that this too is futile. For there is no lasting memory for the wise or the fool, and in the days to come both will be forgotten; the wise, no less than the fool, must die.
Life I have come to hate, for what is done under the sun disgusts me, since all is futility and chasing after the wind. All I have toiled for under the sun and now bequeath to my successor I have come to hate; who knows whether he will be wise or a fool? Yet he will be master of all the work into which I have put my efforts and wisdom under the sun. That is futile too.
I have come to despair of all the efforts I have expended under the sun. For here is one who has laboured wisely, skilfully and successfully and must leave what is his own to someone who has not toiled for it at all. This is futile too, and grossly unjust; for what does he gain for all the toil and strain that he has undergone under the sun since his days are full of sorrow, his work is full of stress and even at night he has no peace of mind? This is futile too.
There is no happiness except in eating and drinking, and in enjoying one's achievements; and I see that this too comes from God's hand; for who would get anything to eat or drink, unless all this came from him? Wisdom, knowledge and joy, God gives to those who please him, but on the sinner he lays the task of gathering and storing up for someone else who is pleasing to him. This too is futility and chasing after the wind."
==
For a contemporary take on Ecclesiastes see "American Beauty" or read "Beyond Futility, American Beauty and the Book of Ecclesiastes' by Robert Johnston in "The Gift of Story: Narrating Hope in a Postmodern World" https://books.google.nl/books?id=2WP_KMBmf7UC&pg=PA85
Ecclesiastes (contained in the Tanakh and the Old Testament) has a streak of stoicism. Written around 25 centuries ago, author unknown. Here is the NJB translation of a part of 1 and 2:
"I, Qoheleth, have reigned over Israel in Jerusalem. Wisely I have applied myself to investigation and exploration of everything that happens under heaven. What a wearisome task God has given humanity to keep us busy! I have seen everything that is done under the sun: how futile it all is, mere chasing after the wind! What is twisted cannot be straightened, what is not there cannot be counted.
I thought to myself: I have acquired a greater stock of wisdom than anyone before me in Jerusalem. I myself have mastered every kind of wisdom and science. I have applied myself to understanding philosophy and science, stupidity and folly, and I now realise that all this too is chasing after the wind. Much wisdom, much grief; the more knowledge, the more sorrow.
I thought to myself, 'Very well, I will try pleasure and see what enjoyment has to offer.' And this was futile too. This laughter, I reflected, is a madness, this pleasure no use at all. I decided to hand my body over to drinking wine, my mind still guiding me in wisdom; I resolved to embrace folly, to discover the best way for people to spend their days under the sun. I worked on a grand scale: built myself palaces, planted vineyards; made myself gardens and orchards, planting every kind of fruit tree in them; had pools made for watering the young trees of my plantations. I bought slaves, male and female, had home-born slaves as well; herds and flocks I had too, more than anyone in Jerusalem before me. I amassed silver and gold, the treasures of kings and provinces; acquired singers, men and women, and every human luxury, chest upon chest of it. So I grew great, greater than anyone in Jerusalem before me; nor did my wisdom leave me. I denied my eyes nothing that they desired, refused my heart no pleasure, for I found all my hard work a pleasure, such was the return for all my efforts.
I then reflected on all that my hands had achieved and all the effort I had put into its achieving. What futility it all was, what chasing after the wind! There is nothing to be gained under the sun. My reflections then turned to wisdom, stupidity and folly. For instance, what can the successor of a king do? What has been done already.
More is to be gained from wisdom than from folly, just as one gains more from light than from darkness; this, of course, I see: The wise have their eyes open, the fool walks in the dark. No doubt! But I know, too, that one fate awaits them both. 'Since the fool's fate', I thought to myself, 'will be my fate too, what is the point of my having been wise?' I realised that this too is futile. For there is no lasting memory for the wise or the fool, and in the days to come both will be forgotten; the wise, no less than the fool, must die.
Life I have come to hate, for what is done under the sun disgusts me, since all is futility and chasing after the wind. All I have toiled for under the sun and now bequeath to my successor I have come to hate; who knows whether he will be wise or a fool? Yet he will be master of all the work into which I have put my efforts and wisdom under the sun. That is futile too.
I have come to despair of all the efforts I have expended under the sun. For here is one who has laboured wisely, skilfully and successfully and must leave what is his own to someone who has not toiled for it at all. This is futile too, and grossly unjust; for what does he gain for all the toil and strain that he has undergone under the sun since his days are full of sorrow, his work is full of stress and even at night he has no peace of mind? This is futile too.
There is no happiness except in eating and drinking, and in enjoying one's achievements; and I see that this too comes from God's hand; for who would get anything to eat or drink, unless all this came from him? Wisdom, knowledge and joy, God gives to those who please him, but on the sinner he lays the task of gathering and storing up for someone else who is pleasing to him. This too is futility and chasing after the wind."
==
For a contemporary take on Ecclesiastes see "American Beauty" or read "Beyond Futility, American Beauty and the Book of Ecclesiastes' by Robert Johnston in "The Gift of Story: Narrating Hope in a Postmodern World" https://books.google.nl/books?id=2WP_KMBmf7UC&pg=PA85
Doesn't it sound more like some sort of fatalistic nihilistic hedonism?
Nothing matters so just do the short term things that bring pleasure, or do long term things, nothing really matters (including the fact that nothing matters).
Eric S. Christianson-Ecclesiastes (Blackwell Bible Commentaries)-Blackwell (2005) academically show how various commentators perceived Ecclesiastes over the last few millenia.
Understandably up to mid 17-18th century most writers/commentators tried to show that Ecclesiastes was being critical of this nihilism / proto existentialism.
However, once you realize that Epilogue (12:9–14) is a tacked on commentary itself, then you are back to nihilism.
How do you progress beyond futily?
Nothing matters so just do the short term things that bring pleasure, or do long term things, nothing really matters (including the fact that nothing matters).
Eric S. Christianson-Ecclesiastes (Blackwell Bible Commentaries)-Blackwell (2005) academically show how various commentators perceived Ecclesiastes over the last few millenia.
Understandably up to mid 17-18th century most writers/commentators tried to show that Ecclesiastes was being critical of this nihilism / proto existentialism.
However, once you realize that Epilogue (12:9–14) is a tacked on commentary itself, then you are back to nihilism.
How do you progress beyond futily?
I read A Guide to the Good Life roughly once a year and found this summary a nice way to stay on it between readings:
http://becomingeden.com/summary-of-a-guide-to-the-good-life/
http://becomingeden.com/summary-of-a-guide-to-the-good-life/
I wonder if taking a stoic approach to life could help with depression?
If stoicism is a kind of proto-Cognitive-Behavioral-Therapy, and CBT improves depression, it really should. Gratitude is IMO very important to improve depression, and stoicism could help with that. Personally I must say that the negative visualization that Irvine proposes causes me problems rather than solve them, because it adds anxiety. Also, imagining things worse than what you have does not automatically make all things right - you can still long for a better version of your world while imagining a horror scenario.
Accepting reality as the only possible (and thus, best) reality works a lot better for me.
Identifying misalignments in my views of other people (or the world), which lead to negative knee-jerk emotions or general low-tune malaise, is another "mind hack" that works for me, but I would not necessarily call this stoic - but a CBT therapist might suggest that.
Accepting reality as the only possible (and thus, best) reality works a lot better for me.
Identifying misalignments in my views of other people (or the world), which lead to negative knee-jerk emotions or general low-tune malaise, is another "mind hack" that works for me, but I would not necessarily call this stoic - but a CBT therapist might suggest that.
I wish to strongly second your observation that focusing on the worst case results in one steering towards the worst case and leads to rumination which results or at least worsens depression. And acceptance of reality as it is seems to he roughly the antidote. The below is dangerous for some minds.
"By keeping the very worst that can happen in our heads constantly, the Stoics tell us, we immunise ourselves from the dangers of too much so-called ‘positive thinking’"
"By keeping the very worst that can happen in our heads constantly, the Stoics tell us, we immunise ourselves from the dangers of too much so-called ‘positive thinking’"
I wouldn't ignore physiological causes of depression, but on the other hand why not try? Who knows, maybe it will help you? A lot depend on what actually is going on in depressed person's life. There are different depressions, different people, and different cures for depression. In ancient times stoicism was recommended as remedy for melancholia. I'm subscribing to /r/stoicism on Reddit and this topic comes up sometimes, some people report that it helped them, e.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/1kljc5/stoicism_a...
I asked, because I don't really have a clue. Depression has never really been a problem for me.
[deleted]
> Marcus Aurelius started each day telling himself: ‘I shall meet with meddling, ungrateful, violent, treacherous, envious, and unsociable people’
In other words: every day I will meet with sinners - but additionally "just as I myself am a sinner"
Christianity understands this much better than the stoics. The problem of the world is sin and what is the remedy?
Jesus Christ
> he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
or
> For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
The foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of the world
In other words: every day I will meet with sinners - but additionally "just as I myself am a sinner"
Christianity understands this much better than the stoics. The problem of the world is sin and what is the remedy?
Jesus Christ
> he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
or
> For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
The foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of the world
Stoicism is life's consolation prize.
(I should know...)
(I should know...)
So where is the International Stoicist Front fighting today against the evil in the world and the suppression of the poor? Oh, they aren't. They are working for international cooperations in a middle management position.
Why is meditation and Stoicism so hyped these days?
Why is meditation and Stoicism so hyped these days?
Stoicism is fundamentally subversive to the Hobbesian leviathan that has been constructed from within the post-enlightenment university system. It is the foundation of western morality and ethics, (the Bible borrows heavily from it).
Stoicism is not taught in public schools because it would make citizens ungovernable. Most education today is about training dependents, where stoicism teaches a kind of spiritual freedom. No grand conspiracy or anything. When education was elite, students learned elite ideas. Now that it is common, for cohesion they must learn common ones instead. Universities wouldn't have survived centuries if they produced graduates who would overthrow their governments, or obviate them entirely.
To cosmopolitanism, great and principled men are dangerous and anathema. Irony is that its most prominent works were by the rulers and elites of city states. Some people on the alt-right spectrum have taken that strain and created a kind of genre-philosophy out of it, like what John Williams is to classical music, some alt right thinkers are to classical philosophy.
Stoicism is not taught in public schools because it would make citizens ungovernable. Most education today is about training dependents, where stoicism teaches a kind of spiritual freedom. No grand conspiracy or anything. When education was elite, students learned elite ideas. Now that it is common, for cohesion they must learn common ones instead. Universities wouldn't have survived centuries if they produced graduates who would overthrow their governments, or obviate them entirely.
To cosmopolitanism, great and principled men are dangerous and anathema. Irony is that its most prominent works were by the rulers and elites of city states. Some people on the alt-right spectrum have taken that strain and created a kind of genre-philosophy out of it, like what John Williams is to classical music, some alt right thinkers are to classical philosophy.
With all due respect but this is ridiculous. I guess you forgot the irony tags. Most (now famous) stoicists where governors or in high ranks. As such they were utmost conservative. Stoicism is the art of being governable despite of you thinking it all sucks.
I'm not sure I agree. If I understand Stoicism correctly a Stoic wouldn't work on changing the system or getting into a better position himself. A real Stoic at heart would therefore be just as good as a believer in your system.
The reason why it's not widely taught may come from that Stoicism hasn't growth wired into it, like Christianity or Islam has. If a Stoic is content with a world outside of his power, then he has no need to convert others to Stoicism.
The reason why it's not widely taught may come from that Stoicism hasn't growth wired into it, like Christianity or Islam has. If a Stoic is content with a world outside of his power, then he has no need to convert others to Stoicism.
I tend to agree with both you and OP in different ways. Perhaps this Epictetus quote will contribute to the discussion:
>I must die. Must I then die lamenting? I must be put in chains. Must I then also lament? I must go into exile. Does any man then hinder me from going with smiles and cheerfulness and contentment?
>I must die. Must I then die lamenting? I must be put in chains. Must I then also lament? I must go into exile. Does any man then hinder me from going with smiles and cheerfulness and contentment?
> It is the foundation of western morality and ethics, (the Bible borrows heavily from it).
What is "it" here? And if it's the Bible, can you point to other resources to explore that connection?
What is "it" here? And if it's the Bible, can you point to other resources to explore that connection?
> "Stoicism is not taught in public schools because it would make citizens ungovernable."
Could you please explain how?
Could you please explain how?
stoicism underlies modern cbt therapy and military training(really any bootcamp).
>No wonder the Stoic sage, in Western culture, has never obtained the popularity of the Zen master.
Perhaps author should check history of Roman Empire and relation between stoicism and Christianity.
Perhaps author should check history of Roman Empire and relation between stoicism and Christianity.
> stoic
> Someone who does not give a shit about the stupid things in this world that most people care so much about. Stoics do have emotions, but only for the things in this world that really matter.
Best definition I've seen of 'stoic' yet :)
> Someone who does not give a shit about the stupid things in this world that most people care so much about. Stoics do have emotions, but only for the things in this world that really matter.
Best definition I've seen of 'stoic' yet :)
The question is then what really matters?
It is turtles all the way down once you start peeling.
It is turtles all the way down once you start peeling.
There's no objective answer to that, therefore no such "limit" exists. Just pick one that looks reasonable to you, continuously review its validity through the course of your life.
Strongly thought about downvoting it, because it basically says "what I care about is important, what you care about is not". It sounds good, but it is certainly not a definition. (and this text is not meant as harsh as it sounds)
Do stoics worry about Trump?
> Do stoics worry about Trump?
I don't think he cares, so in that sense Trump is stoic w.r.t. stoics.
Seriously tho, I couldn't sleep on Election at the thought of all the hateful, racist, anti-immigrant rhetoric that put him in office. The next day, I felt physically ill and that's when my Dad told me "Beta (son), stop worrying about sh_t that you have no control over. Just ride out the next 8 years* , stop watching news and stop reacting and arguing about it, because all said and done, he was DEMOCRATICALLY Elected into Office by a Majority of Voters who got off their butts and cast their vote."
* 8 years = My dad believes that Trump, like Dubya, will get re-elected no matter how bad his Presidency is, because in his own words "When a White Republican President sh*ts, People call it Honey"
I don't think he cares, so in that sense Trump is stoic w.r.t. stoics.
Seriously tho, I couldn't sleep on Election at the thought of all the hateful, racist, anti-immigrant rhetoric that put him in office. The next day, I felt physically ill and that's when my Dad told me "Beta (son), stop worrying about sh_t that you have no control over. Just ride out the next 8 years* , stop watching news and stop reacting and arguing about it, because all said and done, he was DEMOCRATICALLY Elected into Office by a Majority of Voters who got off their butts and cast their vote."
* 8 years = My dad believes that Trump, like Dubya, will get re-elected no matter how bad his Presidency is, because in his own words "When a White Republican President sh*ts, People call it Honey"
Well he was democratically elected according to the rules. If the rules had been different, he might have also have got the majority of voters. We will never know.
Worrying about things out of one's control is decidedly unstoic (keeping in mind, in my case, that I live on the other side of the planet).
Google 'Stoicism and Trump' for some interesting other opinions.
Google 'Stoicism and Trump' for some interesting other opinions.
Anyone interested in Stoicism should have a read about Buddhism, especially the Theravada branch. There are quite interesting parallels to be drawn.
Have any concrete connections between the two been drawn? The timeline generally works out that Greeks from Alexander's armies could have been exposed to Buddhists in some of his eastern campaigns.
The idea that your own happiness or suffering is created by your reaction to events rather than the events themselves is utterly Buddhist.
But I wouldn't say that Buddhism was some Indian equivalent of Stocism. I also read about Epicurianism or even Cynisym and say "hey, that idea is totally the Buddhist, POV". I suspect the same can be done for other Indian schools.
Sages of the axial age from around the old world discovered many similar good ideas, and people later built philosophical schools around them combining things in different ways.
This is why I don't think there was much idea transfer between India and the West. They simply had the same good ideas. (But I am sure the Greek Buddhists of Ghandhara had a field day with the parallels. I wish we had written records of their ideas, to go with their art.)
But I wouldn't say that Buddhism was some Indian equivalent of Stocism. I also read about Epicurianism or even Cynisym and say "hey, that idea is totally the Buddhist, POV". I suspect the same can be done for other Indian schools.
Sages of the axial age from around the old world discovered many similar good ideas, and people later built philosophical schools around them combining things in different ways.
This is why I don't think there was much idea transfer between India and the West. They simply had the same good ideas. (But I am sure the Greek Buddhists of Ghandhara had a field day with the parallels. I wish we had written records of their ideas, to go with their art.)
>The interaction between Hellenistic Greece and Buddhism started when Alexander the Great conquered the Achaemenid Empire and further regions of Central Asia in 334 BC, crossing the Indus and then the Jhelum River after the Battle of the Hydaspes and going as far as the Beas, thus establishing direct contact with India.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism
And Zeno of Citium, who founded stoicism, was born in 334 BC. So some influence is possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism
And Zeno of Citium, who founded stoicism, was born in 334 BC. So some influence is possible.
I've heard Thomas McEvilley mentioned as a good source for the link between pre-Socratic philosophy and India.
https://www.amazon.com/The-Shape-Ancient-Thought-Philosophie...
https://www.amazon.com/The-Shape-Ancient-Thought-Philosophie...
I really do agree with the advantages of Stoicisms ... and agree that they 'do it better in the East' ...
but to say: "No wonder the Stoic sage, in Western culture, has never obtained the popularity of the Zen master."
I think is pushing it a little far.
There are a lot of Christian Monks - now and throughought the ages who would be borderline stoics. And many big thinkers as well.
We (Westerners) just didn't define it very well :)
but to say: "No wonder the Stoic sage, in Western culture, has never obtained the popularity of the Zen master."
I think is pushing it a little far.
There are a lot of Christian Monks - now and throughought the ages who would be borderline stoics. And many big thinkers as well.
We (Westerners) just didn't define it very well :)
You don't have to live on bread and water to be a Stoic. You don't have to be a big thinker either. It's a practical philosophy not a theoretical one. Also it seems to me that you could be surrounded by adherents of this philosophy and not know it because they are hardly likely to make a great fuss about it. You might infer it from their behaviour.
Indeed. One of the more prominent Stoics was a Roman emperor, who had access to every luxury that the world of that time possessed.
His son, however, was an egomaniac.
Who, I just learned, renamed Rome and all of the months of the year after himself. He was assassinated in the first year of his new calendar.
Who, I just learned, renamed Rome and all of the months of the year after himself. He was assassinated in the first year of his new calendar.
Perhaps you should elaborate a little.
Too late to edit, but I was mostly replying to this part:
> You don't have to live on bread and water to be a Stoic.
> You don't have to live on bread and water to be a Stoic.
I came upon stoicism in the Andreas Eschbachs - "the Last of his kind" (great book by the way). Its really quite a fascinating worldview- not at all the "depressed punching bag" of the universe as it looks from the outside.
What is the relevance of the image at the top here of a sub-Saharan African to an article about an ancient European philosophy.
An ancient European philosophy we know of today thanks to written language and a European civilization that developed, preserved and cultivated countless worldchanging ideas.(like the controlled conveyance of photons into your eyes relaying this information)
Written language was never even devised in sub-Saharan Africa!
These agenda driven, Magical Negro juxtapositions are becoming obscene.
An ancient European philosophy we know of today thanks to written language and a European civilization that developed, preserved and cultivated countless worldchanging ideas.(like the controlled conveyance of photons into your eyes relaying this information)
Written language was never even devised in sub-Saharan Africa!
These agenda driven, Magical Negro juxtapositions are becoming obscene.
So people in concentration camps who werent enjoying it just had a bad attitude?
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12994626 and marked it off-topic.
“Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man's_Search_for_Meaning
I was about to bring up Victor Frankl. I'm happy you beat me to it.
In addition, consider the story of Admiral James Stockdale, who was kept in a P.O.W camp in Vietnam for 7 years. His memoir explicitly mentions Stoic philosophy as having been key to his ability to endure.
In addition, consider the story of Admiral James Stockdale, who was kept in a P.O.W camp in Vietnam for 7 years. His memoir explicitly mentions Stoic philosophy as having been key to his ability to endure.
Ah, the reductio-ad-concentration-camp: If advice isn't applicable to Auschwitz, it's not valid in any form.
Sorry for the bluntness. I responded with better phrasing.
Edge cases are good proving grounds for rules claimed to be general.
James Stockdale[1] credited stoicism with giving him strength to endure 7 years of captivity in Vietnam.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Stockdale
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Stockdale
Viktor Frankl, concentration camp resident, might have words with you:
“Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.”
“Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.”
Hindus and Theravada Buddhists would laugh at this.)
Why would they?
For exploring the (Theravada, but really 'fundamental/historical') Buddhist perspective, the best resource I have personally found online is Access to Insight at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/
I couldn't make it through the first sentence of fluff.
Stoicism resurgence seems very unusually connected to the rise of the alt-right.
Not so much as stoicism itself, but a cargo cult version of it:
https://emotionsblog.history.qmul.ac.uk/2016/11/how-the-alt-...
Key quote: "All the classical philosophers that some alt-righters claim to revere put virtue before brute power. The Stoics, in particular, were cosmopolitans – they believed in a universal moral code that transcends race, gender or nationality."
In other words, some people wind up cherry-picking pieces of Stoicism, like equanimity in the face of misfortune, and ignoring others, like cosmopolitanism and considering virtue as the highest/sole good.
In other words, some people wind up cherry-picking pieces of Stoicism, like equanimity in the face of misfortune, and ignoring others, like cosmopolitanism and considering virtue as the highest/sole good.
Bill Clinton was a fan of stoics, so i think you're totally right.
"Human life the Stoics appear to have considered as a game of great skill; in which, however, there was a mixture of chance [...] In such games the stake is commonly a trifle, and the whole pleasure of the game arises from playing well, from playing fairly, and playing skilfully. If notwithstanding all his skill, however, the good player should, by the influence of chance, happen to lose, the loss ought to be a matter, rather of merriment, than of serious sorrow. He has made no false stroke; he has done nothing which he ought to be ashamed of; he has enjoyed completely the whole pleasure of the game. [...]
Our only anxious concern ought to be, not about the stake, but about the proper method of playing. If we placed our happiness in winning the stake, we placed it in what depended upon causes beyond our power, and out of our direction. We necessarily exposed ourselves to perpetual fear and uneasiness, and frequently to grievous and mortifying disappointments. If we placed it in playing well, in playing fairly, in playing wisely and skilfully; in the propriety of our own conduct in short; we placed it in what, by proper discipline, education, and attention, might be altogether in our own power, and under our own direction. Our happiness was perfectly secure, and beyond the reach of fortune."
[1] http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smMS7.html