A Stoic Philosopher in a Hanoi Prison: I am the captain of my soul(butwhatfor.substack.com)
butwhatfor.substack.com
A Stoic Philosopher in a Hanoi Prison: I am the captain of my soul
https://butwhatfor.substack.com/p/takeaway-friday-a-stoic-philosopher
79 comments
I think this is entirely too simplistic of an analysis.
In the same way that a carpenter does not need to know how to derive moments for static equilibrium of a 2x4, the application of stoic philosophy need not make reference to the original writings or the teaching of the philosophy itself.
In fact I would argue that Stockdale's "compression" of the philosophical principles into something tangible and actionable in such a scenario - which both articles demonstrate he did - meant that he had a fundamental understanding of the applicability of Stoicism.
In the same way that a carpenter does not need to know how to derive moments for static equilibrium of a 2x4, the application of stoic philosophy need not make reference to the original writings or the teaching of the philosophy itself.
In fact I would argue that Stockdale's "compression" of the philosophical principles into something tangible and actionable in such a scenario - which both articles demonstrate he did - meant that he had a fundamental understanding of the applicability of Stoicism.
I would agree with this - while Stockdale does say he never used the words stoicism or shared those specific ideas - he was the highest ranking officer and in charge of how the men operated.
In the situation that they were in, if you had someone that was holding up fine and doing what you thought should be done - there is no reason to tell them the stoic terminology for what they are doing.
If you are trying to share knowledge and best practices throughout the camp, you don't need to explain how the ideas came from someone dead for thousands of years.
But saying that Stockdale is turning in his grave because we associated him with Epictetus I think is actually the opposite of what is true.
In the situation that they were in, if you had someone that was holding up fine and doing what you thought should be done - there is no reason to tell them the stoic terminology for what they are doing.
If you are trying to share knowledge and best practices throughout the camp, you don't need to explain how the ideas came from someone dead for thousands of years.
But saying that Stockdale is turning in his grave because we associated him with Epictetus I think is actually the opposite of what is true.
Stoicism seems to be a lost thing these days when everywhere you turn people wish to play the I'm the biggest victim game.
While being stoic may not always be the healthiest way to deal with issues in life, the perpetual victim attitude is also not healthy. It's as if people have adopted the Jehovah's Witness attitude of every rejection being a persecution that they can revel in. Who can be the greatest victim.
Let us strive for balance and not the extremes.
While being stoic may not always be the healthiest way to deal with issues in life, the perpetual victim attitude is also not healthy. It's as if people have adopted the Jehovah's Witness attitude of every rejection being a persecution that they can revel in. Who can be the greatest victim.
Let us strive for balance and not the extremes.
That is something that I struggle with - I think people who think you have to take Stoicism all or nothing have it wrong.
But, if you accept that it was average people coming up with the best ideas that they could at the time, that they could wrong, and that you could take what is good and improve on that which is deficient - that is the right way to approach anything generally.
The same for Stoicism - don’t treat it as religious dogma - treat as ideas to wrestle with and learn from.
But, if you accept that it was average people coming up with the best ideas that they could at the time, that they could wrong, and that you could take what is good and improve on that which is deficient - that is the right way to approach anything generally.
The same for Stoicism - don’t treat it as religious dogma - treat as ideas to wrestle with and learn from.
> Jehovah's Witness attitude
I'm not understanding the analogy. If you believe you are being punished for doing something wrong, how is that reveling in persecution?
Also, I'm not a Jehovah's Witness, but according to their website, they don't even believe suffering is a punishment for their sins. [0]
[0] - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-no3-2018-...
I'm not understanding the analogy. If you believe you are being punished for doing something wrong, how is that reveling in persecution?
Also, I'm not a Jehovah's Witness, but according to their website, they don't even believe suffering is a punishment for their sins. [0]
[0] - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-no3-2018-...
I believe the reference is to the JW eschatology, which foresees JWs as undergoing a sort of total persecution as a sign of Judgement Times, or Armageddon, or whatever they call it. And, because their form of ministry involves frequently talking to and attempting to convert strangers, they encounter many and various forms of rejection, including critiques, that are understood as harbingers of coming persecution. In this sense daily life comes to reaffirm a broader millenarian vision of the future.
phew.
So, I think the analogy is meant to say that our current era's secular glorification of victimhood achieves a similar goal by encoding quotidienne experiences of failure or rejection with a larger meaning, in this case being part of an oppressed group.
But that's just how I read it.
edit: JW childhood, here.
phew.
So, I think the analogy is meant to say that our current era's secular glorification of victimhood achieves a similar goal by encoding quotidienne experiences of failure or rejection with a larger meaning, in this case being part of an oppressed group.
But that's just how I read it.
edit: JW childhood, here.
Is there any way to quantify this common objection?
If I felt this way, I’d suspect it is more likely that I am either ignorant or intolerant of the struggles of these whiners that so annoy me.
If I felt this way, I’d suspect it is more likely that I am either ignorant or intolerant of the struggles of these whiners that so annoy me.
> everywhere you turn people wish to play the I'm the biggest victim game.
> Let us strive for balance and not the extremes.
> Let us strive for balance and not the extremes.
How is stoicism lost when people talk about it on hackers news like every day.
Also, sometimes people are actually victims of s something, even if small injustice. And from experience, trying to act like it is no issue never solves it.
Also, sometimes people are actually victims of s something, even if small injustice. And from experience, trying to act like it is no issue never solves it.
The idea is not that you should act like it is no issue... you should act that it is an issue that you can do something about.
Being stoic is not giving up on the world altogether; it is understanding what you can control. You can control how you handle a situation if you do not view yourself as a victim. The moment you start thinking that you are a victim, you lose control of the situation.
Some people truly ARE VICTIMS - but it is rare that thinking that you have some power over the situation and there is something that you can do about it is a bad idea.
Something like this: https://butwhatfor.substack.com/p/takeaway-tuesday-facing-ad...
Being stoic is not giving up on the world altogether; it is understanding what you can control. You can control how you handle a situation if you do not view yourself as a victim. The moment you start thinking that you are a victim, you lose control of the situation.
Some people truly ARE VICTIMS - but it is rare that thinking that you have some power over the situation and there is something that you can do about it is a bad idea.
Something like this: https://butwhatfor.substack.com/p/takeaway-tuesday-facing-ad...
If someone steals from you, you are victim of robbery. If someone rapes you, you are victim of rape. If your collegues assume you are not skilled cause something about your look, you are victim of bias. If your partner is verbaly abusing you, you are victim of that.
Thinking you are victim in those situations is using right words instead of building taboos.
The moment you admit yourself you was victim of something, you can act on it. If you don't, you end up like one of those victims that will ratilnalize their abusers behavior. There is no shortage of women who instead of admitting they are victims and admitting partner is abuser, just don't want to be those girls. And they will excuse and rationalize and keep appearances.
Thinking you are victim in those situations is using right words instead of building taboos.
The moment you admit yourself you was victim of something, you can act on it. If you don't, you end up like one of those victims that will ratilnalize their abusers behavior. There is no shortage of women who instead of admitting they are victims and admitting partner is abuser, just don't want to be those girls. And they will excuse and rationalize and keep appearances.
So, first and foremost - apologies. I had read two replies and put them together in my head when replying to you. So, yes, I agree with what you are saying here.
The idea that I was trying to get at is that you can accept that you were a victim and do something about it. We are saying the same thing - but you are saying it better, so sorry for the confusion.
Additionally, some people are victims of situations - so say, poor family background, a minority race that is looked down upon by the majority, having a chronic illness - and you can accept that is true but mentally decide that you are going to take steps to make it better, however you can.
You don't want to land in "I have no control and am a victim" when you are being victimized. That is what you are getting at too.
As a society, we don't want to create a society where anyone being abused feels like continuing to be abused is actually better than looking for help / making a change. That's not the victim's fault... that's someone choosing what they see as the best of two not attractive outcomes.
The idea that I was trying to get at is that you can accept that you were a victim and do something about it. We are saying the same thing - but you are saying it better, so sorry for the confusion.
Additionally, some people are victims of situations - so say, poor family background, a minority race that is looked down upon by the majority, having a chronic illness - and you can accept that is true but mentally decide that you are going to take steps to make it better, however you can.
You don't want to land in "I have no control and am a victim" when you are being victimized. That is what you are getting at too.
As a society, we don't want to create a society where anyone being abused feels like continuing to be abused is actually better than looking for help / making a change. That's not the victim's fault... that's someone choosing what they see as the best of two not attractive outcomes.
No, if you are robbed you aren’t the victim. No more than you are the victim for tripping on your shoe laces. You make choices and those choices have consequences. Don’t tie your shoes? Trip! Go out in a sketchy area late at night? Robbed! You put yourself in the situation, and if you didn’t like the result, you change your actions. Seeing it as something done to you I think is the exact opposite of the main message.
This logic just seems twisted. Of course i could have avoided event x, if i had made some other choice at some previous point in time. The whole point of living in society is to offset some personal responibilty to the community so that individuals can live without having to constantly think of all possible negative consequences their actions might potentially bring. What you describe in your comment is little more than victim blaming, not even one step away from blaming rape victims for dressing immodestly.
Did you even read the article?
“Epictetus was telling his students there can be no such thing as being the ‘victim’ of another. You can only be ‘victim’ of yourself.”
So no, I’m not victim blaming, I’m reading the article on what it means to be stoic. Obviously you disagree with the premise. Or... does being a stoic mean you support victim blaming?
“Epictetus was telling his students there can be no such thing as being the ‘victim’ of another. You can only be ‘victim’ of yourself.”
So no, I’m not victim blaming, I’m reading the article on what it means to be stoic. Obviously you disagree with the premise. Or... does being a stoic mean you support victim blaming?
You can get robbed anywhere (yes, even if the area isn't "sketchy") and if you do, it's not your fault. Of course, this does not mean that afterward you shouldn't take the right steps (perhaps you'll go to the police, or take self-defense classes). Knowing that it could have happened to anyone doesn't take away from your agency.
But if you are stoic it is not the offenders fault either. You are only promised suffering and it is up to you to manage that suffering. Maybe nobody on HN wants to be a stoic.
How am I down voted for saying what they are saying is stoic?
Things happen and time can only move in one direction. What use does it serve to wallow in victimhood and self-pity VS adopting a stoic attitude to events?
Cause people who adopt stoic attitude to evens do not make change. They don't get what they were supposed to, they don't make world better. They are passive.
They easily turn into enablers. They end up tempted to claim injustice does not happen further gasslighting victims trying to fight.
Speaking as someone who used to think stoic attitude is superior.
They easily turn into enablers. They end up tempted to claim injustice does not happen further gasslighting victims trying to fight.
Speaking as someone who used to think stoic attitude is superior.
This is a pretty unfair characterization of stoicism. I suggest you read some primary texts rather than a few blog posts on the internet.
Stoicism does not advocate for passivity at all. Just look at Marcus Aurelius, one of Rome’s greatest emperors.
Stoicism does not advocate for passivity at all. Just look at Marcus Aurelius, one of Rome’s greatest emperors.
It's a response to a pretty unfair characterization of people who recognize themselves as victims. The reason some are irritated with people who claim to be victims is because of their activity and action, not because of their wallowing and passivity. When people are wallowing in victimhood rather than speaking up about it, the people who have a problem with that are the compassionate, not the comfortable and resentful. Wallowing in victimhood is depression.
Sounds like you’ve misunderstood stoicism as a concept, but curious how you approach life post-stoicism?
The person i responded to is misunderstanding it the same way when he is building taboo around word victim.
As for what after, it would be complicated to answer. I am changing attitudes toward more activity, more willing to show up anger or other emotions when not showing them is the passivity road.
As for what after, it would be complicated to answer. I am changing attitudes toward more activity, more willing to show up anger or other emotions when not showing them is the passivity road.
FYI I'm the same person, and I'm not building a taboo around the word victim.
Stoicism doesn't advocate for you to be less active. Again, you're misunderstanding the base definition of stoicism. This is much of the same argument I hear about buddhism over here where people somehow think it's a religion of nihilism.
Be a victim or more angry or whatever you like, but it's not going to provide solace, meaningful help or generally better outcomes to you in any situation, plus other people will respond less effectively to it.
Stoicism doesn't advocate for you to be less active. Again, you're misunderstanding the base definition of stoicism. This is much of the same argument I hear about buddhism over here where people somehow think it's a religion of nihilism.
Be a victim or more angry or whatever you like, but it's not going to provide solace, meaningful help or generally better outcomes to you in any situation, plus other people will respond less effectively to it.
[deleted]
Yes, we who have to hear about victimhood are the real victims.
For a stoic you sure seem to be emotionally invested in other people’s emotional reactions to even further people.
This is from one of the articles linked in the linked source, using a metaphor around the idea I tried to share above. You can "play the game of life as best you can," (which includes hopefully bettering the lives of others in addition to yourself) but just don't let it define you.
"In this case, Epictetus said everybody should play the game of life-that the best play it with "skill, fonn, speed and grace." But like most games, you play it with a ball. Your team devotes all its energies to getting the ball across the line.
But after the game, what do you do with the ball? Nobody much cares. It's not worth anything. The competition, the game, was the thing. You play the game with care, making sure you are never making the external a part of yourself, but merely lavishing your skill in regard to it.
The ball was just "used" to make the game possible, so just roll it under the porch and forget it, let it wait for the next game. Most important of all, just don't covet it, don't seek it, don't set your heart on it. It is this latter route that makes externals dangerous, makes them the route to slavery"
"In this case, Epictetus said everybody should play the game of life-that the best play it with "skill, fonn, speed and grace." But like most games, you play it with a ball. Your team devotes all its energies to getting the ball across the line.
But after the game, what do you do with the ball? Nobody much cares. It's not worth anything. The competition, the game, was the thing. You play the game with care, making sure you are never making the external a part of yourself, but merely lavishing your skill in regard to it.
The ball was just "used" to make the game possible, so just roll it under the porch and forget it, let it wait for the next game. Most important of all, just don't covet it, don't seek it, don't set your heart on it. It is this latter route that makes externals dangerous, makes them the route to slavery"
Interesting point - I've always thought the stoic ideal was that each individual takes charge / responsibility for their own life and tries to live a good life. THEN, if everyone is doing that, as a society, we are better off.
Like it is this "first focus on yourself, and then maybe the world around you might be a bit better for everyone" type mentality.
So, the best version of you could involve sharing and hoping that others follow a similar philosophy - but at the same time you need to not define yourself as having failed if others disregard it?
Like it is this "first focus on yourself, and then maybe the world around you might be a bit better for everyone" type mentality.
So, the best version of you could involve sharing and hoping that others follow a similar philosophy - but at the same time you need to not define yourself as having failed if others disregard it?
If I had to boil it down to a quick sentence, I don't think I'd use the personal responsibility approach.
I think I'd go with something like "Not putting value on things outside your control."
I think I'd go with something like "Not putting value on things outside your control."
But I just think that is not completely correct either - a big part of Stoicism, unless I am missing something, is also being a better person holistically.
A world where everyone doesn't care about things generally (like a popular negative generalization of Stoicism) doesn't ever work.
A world where everyone is focused on being the best version of themselves might work better than everyone being focused on making the best world. I think that gets looped into Stoic teaching as well.
A world where everyone doesn't care about things generally (like a popular negative generalization of Stoicism) doesn't ever work.
A world where everyone is focused on being the best version of themselves might work better than everyone being focused on making the best world. I think that gets looped into Stoic teaching as well.
Y'know, I don't think I've ever heard someone use that exact sentence, but I think it's an ok distillation for parts of stoicism (depending on your definition of better, that word has a lot of baggage when applied to human beings), especially the parts Seneca focuses on if I'm recalling them correctly.
Ultimately I think the problem is trying to distill it down to a single sentence. Perhaps I was in error in attempting to provide a better example of something that cannot be done adequately, it may have just caused more confusion.
Ultimately I think the problem is trying to distill it down to a single sentence. Perhaps I was in error in attempting to provide a better example of something that cannot be done adequately, it may have just caused more confusion.
That's a great way to summarize it.
James B. Stockdale was Ross Perot's VP candidate in 1992. He didn't want to brag about his past and he was made fun in the TV because he had bad hearing (due to the beatings he received in Hanoi).
And then we lost him to Alzheimer's disease... just seems like he suffered all too much for one individual.
You are talking about one of the most privileged people on earth. Not to mention the guy caused immense suffering on innocent vietnamese people. The guy certainly deserves no sympathy cause his "suffering" was a result of murdering people.
Yeah, I’m going to need some sources for that.
Who did He murder? Can you give me a name?
You can’t? You have no verifiable War Crimes? I thought as much.
> Yeah, I’m going to need some sources for that.
You need a source that millions of vietnamese were murdered?
> You have no verifiable War Crimes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%E1%BB%B9_Lai_massacre
But of course, nothing we do is war crime. How convenient. The entire vietname war was a war crime and crime against humanity.
You need a source that millions of vietnamese were murdered?
> You have no verifiable War Crimes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%E1%BB%B9_Lai_massacre
But of course, nothing we do is war crime. How convenient. The entire vietname war was a war crime and crime against humanity.
Literally the only thing people knew about Stockdale is that he had been a POW and cared about POWs, and the problem that people had with him is that they couldn't recognize any other qualifications that he had for the office. He started a debate by asking a question that everybody had, and didn't answer it in a way that convinced anyone.
This is a very timely article as an annual event called Stoic Week begins on Monday. It is online and free to attend, so if Stoicism piques your interest you should consider participating, I am.
https://learn.modernstoicism.com/p/stoic-week
Also, Stockdale's original article quoted in this article is well worth a read. This is a PDF link.
https://www.usna.edu/Ethics/_files/documents/Stoicism2.pdf
https://learn.modernstoicism.com/p/stoic-week
Also, Stockdale's original article quoted in this article is well worth a read. This is a PDF link.
https://www.usna.edu/Ethics/_files/documents/Stoicism2.pdf
Interesting and thank you for the link. 100% agree that both of the articles linked in the write-up should be read.
#1 is a little wordy, but worth it to understand how Stockdale is thinking. #2 is more fun to read.
#1 is a little wordy, but worth it to understand how Stockdale is thinking. #2 is more fun to read.
> This is a very timely article as an annual event called Stoic Week begins on Monday. It is online and free to attend, so if Stoicism piques your interest you should consider participating, I am.
I am glad you shared this. I just registered. Thank you.
I am glad you shared this. I just registered. Thank you.
It matters not how strait the gate,
how charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the master of my fate,
I am the captain of my soul.
Love this poem by William Ernest Henley - “Invictus”
Love this poem by William Ernest Henley - “Invictus”
Chuck Swindoll was once a fan of that poem, but came around to a higher truth. I couldn't find the radio sermon where he used it as an example but the truth is that at some point you ought to learn that 1) there's quite a lot directing your fate other than yourself, and 2) you can't save yourself--any more than Baron Munchausen could pull himself out of the water by his own ponytail.
Rather than "invictus" I would rather be conquered by the Hound of Heaven: https://www.bartleby.com/236/239.html
Rather than "invictus" I would rather be conquered by the Hound of Heaven: https://www.bartleby.com/236/239.html
>hardly an American came out of that without responding something like this when first whispered to by a fellow prisoner next door: "You don't want to talk to me; I am a traitor."
Several times the article talks about how the American prisoners felt guilt that torture was able to compel them to confess or divulge information or similar. That really surprised me. I can't imagine feeling guilty that I divulged secrets under torture.
Several times the article talks about how the American prisoners felt guilt that torture was able to compel them to confess or divulge information or similar. That really surprised me. I can't imagine feeling guilty that I divulged secrets under torture.
Part of what was so effective about the Vietnamese, and Chinese in the Korean War, was getting the prisoners of war to feel shame. Any shame was what they wanted. Shame that they were captured. Shamed that they were attacking villages. Shame that they gave up secrets.
So not only were you saying things that a romanticized view of the military has pounded into you that you would never do... but your captors are trained and specifically trying to make you feel shame / degrade your sense of self value.
So I think it is more than just physical torture, but unfortunately adept mental torture as well, that leads to men having those emotions.
So not only were you saying things that a romanticized view of the military has pounded into you that you would never do... but your captors are trained and specifically trying to make you feel shame / degrade your sense of self value.
So I think it is more than just physical torture, but unfortunately adept mental torture as well, that leads to men having those emotions.
US doctrine at the time was that soldiers were only supposed to reveal their name, rank and serial number, so soldiers naturally felt they had failed if they revealed anything else.
For a comparable example, there is Man’s Search for Meaning by Victor Frankl, which uses his experience of surviving the holocaust in four concentration camps to argue for an existential, meaning-centered view of the purpose of life. He doesn’t reference Stoicism directly but Epictetus is certainly in the background. As, for example, in this passage:
“Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of 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 human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way.”
I have this on my bookshelf but hadn't read it yet - thank you for the reminder.
That is a great quote. I often view my own small problems as insurmountable. I have a bad attitude about them more often than not.
Not to trivialize small sufferings in the least, but man do people, at least me, get stuck in negativity by comparatively insignificant things.
That is a great quote. I often view my own small problems as insurmountable. I have a bad attitude about them more often than not.
Not to trivialize small sufferings in the least, but man do people, at least me, get stuck in negativity by comparatively insignificant things.
Lovely read. Thank you.
I'm more interested in hearing about the philosophy which comforted Vietnamese civilians who had to live their lives under constant American terror-bombing than I am in hearing about the philosophy which comforted the bombers.
"Grandstanding: The Use and Abuse of Moral Talk"
https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/o...
>People used to hold out great hope for a public square in which individuals put petty disputes aside and engage in rational discussion about important issues. Unfortunately, public discourse today—especially on the internet—is full of adults behaving like poorly socialized children, acting out to show off for people they want to impress. In short, they engage in moral grandstanding, or the use of moral talk for self-promotion. Drawing from work in psychology, economics, and political science, this book develops an explanation of why people grandstand when they talk about morality and politics. Using the tools of moral philosophy, it argues that grandstanding is not just annoying, but morally bad. And finally, it explains what we can do to encourage people to support a public square worth participating in, by avoiding grandstanding.
>People used to hold out great hope for a public square in which individuals put petty disputes aside and engage in rational discussion about important issues. Unfortunately, public discourse today—especially on the internet—is full of adults behaving like poorly socialized children, acting out to show off for people they want to impress. In short, they engage in moral grandstanding, or the use of moral talk for self-promotion. Drawing from work in psychology, economics, and political science, this book develops an explanation of why people grandstand when they talk about morality and politics. Using the tools of moral philosophy, it argues that grandstanding is not just annoying, but morally bad. And finally, it explains what we can do to encourage people to support a public square worth participating in, by avoiding grandstanding.
OP posted a dumb motivational essay based on a bullshit hagiography of a guy whose day job was to mass murder civilians. If you’re cool with that then your moral framework has a screw loose, sorry.
Slightly unfair, to discredit the suffering of either side, though, right? Regardless of whether your views on the U.S. involved (Stockdale, who this article is about, believes the US gave up its moral high ground amongst the nations of the world by participating, for what it is worth - so he wasn't a fan of being there)
Human, generally, are really great at making people suffer. Was it right to be bombing North Vietnam? Was it right to be torturing people in prison camps?
Overall, I do agree that it would be interesting to learn from an memoirs from North Vietnamese at this time. I have never thought to look for that. So thank you for highlighting.
Human, generally, are really great at making people suffer. Was it right to be bombing North Vietnam? Was it right to be torturing people in prison camps?
Overall, I do agree that it would be interesting to learn from an memoirs from North Vietnamese at this time. I have never thought to look for that. So thank you for highlighting.
> I'm more interested in hearing about [...]
did... did you google that? could you share what you found? i don't see any relevant submissions in your history.
did... did you google that? could you share what you found? i don't see any relevant submissions in your history.
Vietnam appears to be philosophically mixed with Confuscianism as a base. Taoism, Buddhism, Catholic, French colonial and Marxism on top. But I’d suspect Cambodia, who we probably dropped even more bombs on, would be more strictly Buddhist.
Eastern Philosophy on suffering and war would be an interesting topic.
Eastern Philosophy on suffering and war would be an interesting topic.
Laos took the brunt of the bombing (it is next to northern Vietnam).
https://www.history.com/news/laos-most-bombed-country-vietna...
https://www.history.com/news/laos-most-bombed-country-vietna...
Do you have any suggested material on your first two sentences?
Think beginner that has mainly focused on western ideas wanting to get a foundation in eastern philosophy and then go from there.
Think beginner that has mainly focused on western ideas wanting to get a foundation in eastern philosophy and then go from there.
Sorry, no. But it would be a good question for one of the reddit philosophy forums. There probably are comparative religion classes/books that discuss Eastern religion/philosophy from a western perspective.
I would expect Vietnamese socially tied to different eras like Catholic, French colony and Marxist to have very different views. What they share in common must be pretty fascinating.
I would expect Vietnamese socially tied to different eras like Catholic, French colony and Marxist to have very different views. What they share in common must be pretty fascinating.
Interesting to think that Vietnam might have a mix of all those cultures. I guess the same can be said about Macao or Hong Kong - you had traditional east asian cultures mixed very recently with western culture.
I wonder if there are any examples of the reverse?
I wonder if there are any examples of the reverse?
Stoicism, as a philosophy, is indeed personally valuable and an interesting way to view the world.
But no, I have little respect for this eulogy of a vice-admiral in the army. I expect that he is another faker, like John McCain, whose father was a full admiral. Were either of these characters even PoWs? I doubt it.
These people are not to be respected. They are our governors. They tell stories and lies. To manipulate us into thinking we deserve to be governed by them. And they like to portray themselves as heroes to be worshipped. All lies.
If we use some skepticism - which, I know we all profess to do - we don't know that any of this is true! Its not true because it says so in some online source.
All I can see is another soft-sell, soft-spin of some character, that in a more moral dimension, would likely have been sent to life imprisonment for crimes against humanity.
But no, I have little respect for this eulogy of a vice-admiral in the army. I expect that he is another faker, like John McCain, whose father was a full admiral. Were either of these characters even PoWs? I doubt it.
These people are not to be respected. They are our governors. They tell stories and lies. To manipulate us into thinking we deserve to be governed by them. And they like to portray themselves as heroes to be worshipped. All lies.
If we use some skepticism - which, I know we all profess to do - we don't know that any of this is true! Its not true because it says so in some online source.
All I can see is another soft-sell, soft-spin of some character, that in a more moral dimension, would likely have been sent to life imprisonment for crimes against humanity.
Skepticism is thinking they exaggerated some facts and perhaps over emphasized the importance of Stoicism and his mental fortitude to paint a prettier picture.
What you're describing is unfounded paranoia. The elites are out to get us? McCain is a hoax?
What you're describing is unfounded paranoia. The elites are out to get us? McCain is a hoax?
No. Skepticism is refusing to believe in something until it has been shown to be true.
What commonly passes as skepticism is a very tame effort. To say accept 50% of the claims, rather than 100%. You should accept 0% of claims that you have not verified. This is also known as the scientific method. (But don't look to science to be upholding it...)
The elites govern us. They have always governed us. One of the methodologies is that is to sell us on stories from the cradle that allow them to operate in reality, while we are living in unsubstantiated stories.
When we take no action to verify, when we trust our experts, politicians, anyone apart from ourselves, when we accept the authority of another over our own experience, we are badly lost.
Do you recollect when it was going to be 2 weeks to flatten the curve? Do you think the curve will be flattened? Do we need to 'mask harder'? Get vaccinated? Why didn't we have cold vaccines previously? Do we need to isolate healthy people, is that how it works? The contradictions in the current narrative are impossible to resolve if you are a thinking person with authority over your own thinking.
McCain is clearly from the governance clique. His father was an admiral. He then does a dog and pony show in the intimidating country of 'Vietnam', and comes back into governance and plays his role. He is an actor. We get indications of this, eg the broken leg that changes legs! Here's the explanation:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5113233/John-McCain...
He says:
"Finally on Thursday, McCain himself took to Twitter to put the conspiracy theories to rest. 'My left leg was doing extra work to compensate for the boot, so I'm giving it a break,' the senator tweeted. 'I still hate wearing this boot, but it won't slow us down from frying 7 turkeys today!'"
That explanation explains nothing. NOTHING. But the headline says it "solves the riddle of his moveable leg". Maybe you read it wrong? Perhaps you had better doubt yourself, and trust the experts! And then you have to read a load more soft spin and fluff about how wonderful man, what a wonderful family, etc, etc, and nothing about him being a criminal that should have spent most of his time in jail for being an enemy of humanity - being part of the governance system.
The reality unfortunately is that no one is checking anything, and that people's brains are turned off. Especially well educated brains. They have fully accepted the stories, and are better at filling in the blanks, rather than letting the evidence do the talking.
All the best.
What commonly passes as skepticism is a very tame effort. To say accept 50% of the claims, rather than 100%. You should accept 0% of claims that you have not verified. This is also known as the scientific method. (But don't look to science to be upholding it...)
The elites govern us. They have always governed us. One of the methodologies is that is to sell us on stories from the cradle that allow them to operate in reality, while we are living in unsubstantiated stories.
When we take no action to verify, when we trust our experts, politicians, anyone apart from ourselves, when we accept the authority of another over our own experience, we are badly lost.
Do you recollect when it was going to be 2 weeks to flatten the curve? Do you think the curve will be flattened? Do we need to 'mask harder'? Get vaccinated? Why didn't we have cold vaccines previously? Do we need to isolate healthy people, is that how it works? The contradictions in the current narrative are impossible to resolve if you are a thinking person with authority over your own thinking.
McCain is clearly from the governance clique. His father was an admiral. He then does a dog and pony show in the intimidating country of 'Vietnam', and comes back into governance and plays his role. He is an actor. We get indications of this, eg the broken leg that changes legs! Here's the explanation:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5113233/John-McCain...
He says:
"Finally on Thursday, McCain himself took to Twitter to put the conspiracy theories to rest. 'My left leg was doing extra work to compensate for the boot, so I'm giving it a break,' the senator tweeted. 'I still hate wearing this boot, but it won't slow us down from frying 7 turkeys today!'"
That explanation explains nothing. NOTHING. But the headline says it "solves the riddle of his moveable leg". Maybe you read it wrong? Perhaps you had better doubt yourself, and trust the experts! And then you have to read a load more soft spin and fluff about how wonderful man, what a wonderful family, etc, etc, and nothing about him being a criminal that should have spent most of his time in jail for being an enemy of humanity - being part of the governance system.
The reality unfortunately is that no one is checking anything, and that people's brains are turned off. Especially well educated brains. They have fully accepted the stories, and are better at filling in the blanks, rather than letting the evidence do the talking.
All the best.
I (very seriously) suggest consulting a mental health professional. Please take this with the kind intention it was meant. I had a good friend a while back that also was quite intelligent and got off on conspiracy theories, had severe trust issues, and used his intellect to drive himself up a wall.
[deleted]
A vice admiral in the Army?
That rank doesn’t exist.
What other poorly informed thoughts did you just shit all over us?
What other poorly informed thoughts did you just shit all over us?
That's from the article!
Ah I see, I said army not navy. Whatevs.
Love the irony. I suppose also that you are above being the target of the (misconception of) skepticism you are trying to promote, even when you yourself recognize you're writing falsehoods, with a dismissal as if they weren't important.
That, by the way, is a question, I'm honestly curious if you actually think yourself above your own judgment.
That, by the way, is a question, I'm honestly curious if you actually think yourself above your own judgment.
I'm not in the military, I've no interest in it. I mis-spoke and said army instead of navy and you think I'm writing falsehoods. When I realised my mistake, I came back to correct it! That's ethics! I eat my dogfood.
Yes, I also expressed a bit of distaste at the way you had missed the main point of what I was saying. You want to nitpick and call me a liar.
So, judge yourself. You want to critique an error of mine, but will swallow whatever BS some random online publication puts out.
Whatevs.
Yes, I also expressed a bit of distaste at the way you had missed the main point of what I was saying. You want to nitpick and call me a liar.
So, judge yourself. You want to critique an error of mine, but will swallow whatever BS some random online publication puts out.
Whatevs.
https://www.1517fund.com/post/the-inadequacies-of-the-invinc...
--------
The truth was, despite the consolation it gave him, Stockdale never thought Stoicism would help his tortured cellmates. He never tapped Epictetus’s maxims in code through the prison walls to his friends. “You soon realized that when you dared to spout high-minded philosophical suggestions through the wall, you always got a very reluctant response. No, I never tapped or mentioned Stoicism once.”
Still, years later, people would want to know what kept the captured pilots going. How did they survive for so long? Stockdale’s answer was not Epictetus and the Stoics. His answer was always, “The man next door.”