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.
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.
> Tathagata Buddha, the Father Buddha, said, "With our thoughts, we make the world."
That is a first-world perspective: 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.
What kind of adversity?
Of course. Water sanitation is a big thing. Access to affordable food, the list goes on ...
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.
This can be said about decadence also!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
They would take part on actions against injustices. But they would try to be guided by reason rather than emotions.
My beef is with the pop philosophy idea of 'your happiness is your choice'.
I can give to charity, and be happy with my own life at the same time, even knowing that others are suffering.
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.