Hacker News Reader

> Is it not possible for the modern man to accept the drawbacks of modern life, including loneliness, just as stoically as the primitive man was accepting adversity and death?

Primitive men weren't stoic. We attribute that quality to them because we now understand how common diseases work and why they were so prominent in that time. That understanding -part of the advantages of modern life- has forever changed our perspective on the subject.

For primitive men, life was probably terrifying and a constant struggle. When someone in the tribe got sick, they didn't say "oh well, that's life! What can you do?". They'd attribute it to some supernatural force that was clearly angry at them for something they did. That's why they created various superstitions and rituals, as a way to combat the things they could not understand and control. That's not exactly being stoic.

That being said, I do believe that some people are not equipped to deal with modern life, and that a larger degree of solitude is part of that life.

I'm lucky in the sense that, for me, being alone does not have an emotional tax. I enjoy being alone as much as I enjoy being in good company (and because you cannot always count on the company to be good, i'd say I enjoy it even more). I'm not saying I like to be alone sometimes. I really enjoy being alone for extended periods of time and could imagine living the rest of my life alone to some degree (I do like the rhythm of modern cities). But I understand the frustration of those who cannot endure solitude or get a feeling of loneliness from it.

I wouldn't say modern society sucks, though. It has a lot going for it, but it's obviously not perfect.

For primitive men, life was probably terrifying and a constant struggle

Yes, but the Stoics weren't "primitive" really. I may be getting the timeline mixed up slightly but they were part of a civilisation that invented steam engines but never bothered to develop them because they had slavery to provide manual labour! They are far closer to us than they were to cavemen in every meaningful way.

Update: Epictetus died in 135 AD. Vitruvius died in 15 AD and was writing about steam engines... So the Stoics were a century into what could have been the Age of Steam, which would be 1870 in our timeline!

Off topic, but this stack exchange post convinced me that the Roman's didn't have the metallurgical skills to truly enter the age of steam[0]. They didn't have the ability to mine enough iron nor the ability to cast (and definitely not mill) it precisely enough for proper steam engine parts.

[0]: https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/98363/26525

> Yes, but the Stoics weren't "primitive" really

They weren't that many either. Most of their greek / roman peers were still in the dark about common ailments and diseases, and resorted to all kinds of superstitions to treat them and fight them.

What I'm getting at is that this view of the primitive man as a stoic figure in tune with nature is severely distorted by our current worldview and knowledge. There was nothing "stoic" about the majority of them lived their lives.

More broadly, I'm trying to make the point that Kaczynski was a nutcase with a severe misconception of the human condition.

> They'd attribute it to some supernatural force that was clearly angry at them for something they did.

Or the neighbouring tribe hexing them. Stuff like this still goes on today unchanged in Papua New Guinea.

It’s also possible to live differently. I played the stoic for decades until the isolation of being a business owner living in a city pushed me over the brink.

I’ve struggled with loneliness my entire life - and adult life has been worse than childhood. I started boarding school at six - and while I was homesick for some time, the camaraderie of other inmates, uh, students, was the only thing that kept me mildly sane - I had people to look out for and protect, and similarly people looked out for and protected me.

As an adult, I’ve unwittingly repeatedly chosen lonely paths - moving frequently for several years before settling down and starting a business. I spent my days surrounded by people with nobody to relate to - I can be friendly with employees and clients, but I can’t be friends. I can’t confide about what worries me.

Either way, I broke - I spent most of 2016 having anxiety attacks that’d see me vomit for weeks on end, to the extent that I ended up hospitalised several times with severe dehydration and hypoglycaemia. I passed on the reins and left.

I now live on the edge of a village in the middle of nowhere north wales. I have drinks or go for walks with with my 93 and 84 year old neighbours most days. I’ve made friends with all sorts, just by saying hello to folks as they walk past the cottage.

My financial future is uncertain - but as I write this I am so happy it brings tears to my eyes.

We’ve really forgotten what’s important - and there’s a story about a chap called Midas that we could all do to learn a thing or two from.

Thanks for this, the first half of the comment perfectly sums up my last few years.

I've moved out of London to try and live a more comfortable and less hectic life in a smaller city, now I find I'm so alone I want to move back to the city just to be with my friends.

I'd love to be in the middle of nowhere, or anywhere else in the world, but the "friends" problem is always so understated. I _need_ friends(hip), or I don't function. Even as an "antisocial" person, as my friends like to say, friendship is the most important thing in life.

Funnily, the fact that I'm being productive while a big part of myself is just a huge hole is impressive in itself.

I found that it's like a furnace that still burns hot from your momentum, but when you stop throwing in fuel (social interaction, feeling that you belong), the creative and productive juices do dry up and you end up, maybe literally, dehydrated; and I fondly remember getting my best ideas and impulses after good times spent with friends.

It feels like beeing a black hole, with a thin crust of human on top, sometimes it hurts so much, that you can allmost hear a sucking, swirling sound.

thanks for sharing; i was a (catholic) boarding school lad from age 6 until university

deeply envious envious of the place you've chose to live

where i've had so many excellent days out (snowdonia mostly)--bunk at pen-y-pass YHA, snowdon horseshoe, glyders traverse, etc), then finish each day with a litre mug of tea at Pete's in Llanberis

So weird seeing Pete's eats mentioned here. One of my best friends lives in Llanberis.

I once got taken up Crib Goch completely unprepared, thinking I was going on a leisurely walk. I was not impressed.

you were not impressed at the time, but now that you've done it (Crib Goch) you have only fond memories of the experience and look forward to having another go some day, i'm guessing? :-)

is Pete's still there? I haven't been to Llanberis in maybe 5 years; it would be depressing to find it closed (and eg, a mini-Marks & Spencers in its place) on my next trip

Midas? The guy whos only remaining statue shows him plucking the nose?

Thanks for sharing

I learned from Zen Buddhism the same idea that you share here. Indeed, if we treat other people like other act of god, i.e. as things that don't act but just are, a lot of stress, anger, and sadness will vanish [1]. Zen and Stoicism are similar in their promotion of acceptance. I happen to feel more drawn to Zen because of their comprehensive guide towards how to achieve this acceptance.

[1] Within Zen, this idea is captured in the parable of an "empty boat." http://omswami.com/2015/09/the-empty-boat.html

Great parable, thanks!

Actually this is the central tenet[0] of Buddhism. Zen is only one tradition[1] of its teaching. If you'd like to read the closest we have to "original" material on Buddhist philosophy (translated directly to modern English from written Pali[2]), check out https://accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Buddhist_traditions_t...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pali

You're treading close to nihilism here, which is a dangerous way to live. The article has a good quote:

"The great prophylactic against loneliness is feeling that you are part of something bigger than yourself – a family, a friendship group, a community, a benign universe, whatever. Even a community with little in the way of material resources finds some contentment in being in a group of people who are all in it together."

When you're feeling the way you feel you can retreat from the world and try to treat everything with detachment and equanimity, but I think that's a losing proposition. It puts you in a passive role and makes you feel like you don't have much control of your life. It's better to take a more active role in life and find something that you value and work towards that. What it is doesn't really matter as long as you pick something that has a least some significance to you and that involves other people.

>being in a group of people who are all in it together."

All in what together?

Groups need goals, some sense of purpose..

Traditionally, survival.

Viktor Frankl, a concentration camp survivor, would agree with your last point. He wrote Man's Search for Meaning, and one of his main points is that sometimes you can't control what happens in life, only how you choose to act while enduring it.

It's a pretty amazing book. And really brings things into sharp contrast. You might be struggling with work (and I've been in that struggle myself, it's not fun, and hard to escape from), but this man managed to to make it through one of the worst atrocities ever committed against fellow humans, and not fall to pieces as a result of it.

http://benjaminmcevoy.com/7-lessons-learned-mans-search-mean...

Radicals would say that it's politically problematic to expect individuals to take up any slack with their own resilience/fortitude.

Telling people that they must learn to bear their suffering, rather than receive substantial support from (a possibly reorganized) system, is, of course, a very inexpensive form of wellbeing intervention.

I have a theory about stoicism in the past vs. stoicism in the present. Keep in mind that I say this all from a very North American point of view (born in Iran, but grew up in Canada).

In the past, there was no guard against disease. If it came, you were done for. There were some limited options available when it came to medicine, but by and large, if you got a disease, that was it. It was out of your hands, and even if you wanted to, you couldn't do anything.

In the present, there are a lot of solutions that can be solved with enough access to capital. It's possible now, not impossible as it was prior, to cure yourself of certain ailments, if only you live in the right place, have the right amount of money (or social security), etc. To a certain degree, living in a particular place and access to capital can be a matter of personal choice. A lot of the time, not enough to get you the treatment you need, but enough to give you the sense of having some measure of control.

Having a measure of control but being powerless is new to modern life.

That's what I think, at least. What does HN think?

---

Industrial Society and it's Future really hit home for me a month ago when I first came across it. I feel you.

Stoicism addresses deeply rooted human tendencies. I don't think, if we are being honest, we have any more real control. We are less likely to die but we have merely stretched our individual timeline slightly in the scheme of things. It (access to modern medicine) should not change ones philosophy much IMO.

Chasing a good place to live, die and fulfill personal needs is hedonistic in nature. You would have to buy into the reincarnation thing to defer that to another incarnation and accept your lot in life as it is.

There is value in acceptance but it's for the ones that are better off than others. There's nothing just in death by a preventable disease when a cure is outside if ones ability to obtain it.

Silicon valley stoicism emerged due to people loosing track of their worth, mindlessly running after profit. We should stride for goals (personal and shared), not take solace in a philosophy of existential stagnation.

It's pretty bleak and depressing but IMO it's not ones philosophy that changes, but the interpretation of it and resulting actions that it inspires.

In other words economic prosperity is a variable factor that will influence ones actions no matter what their philosophy is. By changing the variable you will change the product it gives. Dismissing it is ignorant until it's proven that it doesn't influence your sum-of-life-happiness.

Pretty hard to measure given we have 1 playthrough, nevertheless it can still be a factor. Stating otherwise is a matter of opinion about the volatility of influence a given factor has.

Is there any reason to believe that primitive people did not fought each other, did not bullied each other and did not enslaved each other? When primitive dude hits smaller one or rapes primitive girl, how is it not man made?

How do we know they were stoic? How do we know they were not stressed or frustrated?

Humans tended to live in small groups of mostly related people. If you met another human outside of your group you usually tried to kill each other. It's thought that the global human diaspora resulted from these small bands of people trying to avoid each other as much as possible.

"Humans tended to live in small groups of mostly related people."

That is perfect situation for bullying. The victim cant leave. Close knit groups are great, until they are not.

They were generally family groups that very much depended on each other constantly for survival. The social dynamics would be very different than what can readily be imagined today. Harassing someone whose existence is necessary for you all to eat tomorrow or to avoid getting eaten by wild animals is going to be quite a different situation.

Applying the fad buzzword for children being mean to each other in suburban middle schools to primitive human culture isn't exactly a valid comparison.

The only people who long for a large family are the ones that aren't in one.

Look at how much constant violence and bullying there is between any siblings when an adult isn't around to stop it.

Different environment, no?

Back then, kids would need to rely on each other more, no?

Nowadays, what good is a sibling really?

"Back then" you would try and kill your oldest brother to inherit the 2 chickens and a goat your parents would leave to him.

Read no further than the histories of nobles and their feuds and murders to see how bad the best families were.

The nobles were the richest families, but not necessarily the best by any other measure.

Best by food availability, shelter, labor.

Given that even in good years a large portion of the population was malnourished in whatever time period you want to pick before the middle of the 20th century, the rich were always better off than the poor and rich families were better than poor ones.

Right, all those things are different ways of saying wealth.

The implication made uphtread is that the rich were best in terms of (lower) intrafamilial conflict. One might assume that wealth produced that effect, one might also assume that the rich were more dependent on social status and property for support, while the poor were more dependent on having close relations who could give aid and lacked assets to fight over, thus leading to less intrafamilial conflict than among the rich.

"Harassing someone whose existence is necessary for you all to eat tomorrow or to avoid getting eaten by wild animals is going to be quite a different situation."

Then again, harassing someone who depends on you is entirely different.

Then again, bullying someone so that you ensure pecking order and he does what you want and is beneficial for you a bit more in situation with scarcity is different too.

Suburban middle schools kids did not invented cruelty nor mockery nor ostracization nor beating other kids up. My grand parents remembered such stories. Old books contains such stories. If anything, this get worst with bad situations - hunger or war. There is no reason to think primitive people were somehow magically honorable and noble.

I'm talking about primitive human hunter-gatherer society, you're talking about your grandparents.

"small groups of mostly related people" still bully and harass each other which is case of grandparents childhood. Why would hunter-gatherers not? Especially since victim leaving his group makes him vulnerable to all those other tribes that would "tried to kill" you (plus your old)?

I am guessing that it's both the ones who won the fights and those who avoided them survived. When these groups meet in (fairly) modern society it's not that hard to imagine what happens to the latter group.

This article about loneliness made me think about this Kaczynski quote, which is why I added it here. I'm pretty sure primitive men had their fair share of violence, both physical and psychological, but I do suspect the concept of loneliness that is described is this article was much more rare back then.

I would say fooling your mind is not easy. Definition of mind is "something that seeks" to want a "mind that doesn't seek" is meaningless and absurd. Its like wanting a nose that doesn't breathe.

Sure you can come up with various philosophies like stoicism, Buddhism ect but you are merely trading one loop of seeking for another. Now you are stuck in a 'non-seeking' loop and failure to achieve 'non-seeking'.

You don't have to fully stop seeking to see benefits. I have seen many benefits to my mental health through yoga, where you practice seeing the seeking/avoidance patterns and learn to breathe into them and accept it.

The practice (IMO) isn't to break the loop as much as it is to see the loop. And to see it while it's happening/during triggers.

> I would say fooling your mind is not easy.

Just responding to this: fooling your mind is not hard. Even very rational, skeptical minds engage in self deception all the time. Our minds are so unbelievably malleable. We are all wired to be prone to biases and unexamined schemas. These just look different for rational types.

On the other hand, it is possible to achieve results by not fooling your mind, but simply by reframing one's own thoughts. This is the basis of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), which works very well in helping manage negative feedback loops.

Often times our negative emotions are caused by feedback loops, therefore it stands to reason that we need a method to moderate these overactive loops. CBT is one of a few approaches that have been shown to work well for a significant number of people (nothing works 100% of course).

Guy Winch alludes to this in a TED Talk (I think TED talks are oversimplifications, but this one does present some good salient points about emotional hygiene and loneliness which I have found to be helpful in my own life)

https://www.ted.com/talks/guy_winch_the_case_for_emotional_h...

> reframing one's own thoughts.

Who is this entity that is reframing the your thoughts. Is it also not you? This is some sort of psychotic thinking to divide yourself into many parts, one part passing judgments and rulings on the other. This sort of thinking of is at the root of why we are so conflicted and full of suffering. This just perpetuates that style of thinking without examining why we are so divided in the first place.

No, it's your therapist working with you.

sure but its actually you thats telling yourself to think differently.

It's not modern society that sucks, it's our version of modern society that sucks.

If you're into essays, check this one out: http://julesboykoff.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Boykoff_L...

I had to google Ted Kaczinski (I'm not American), so I just want to mention here that Ted Kaczinski is a terrorist and mass murderer. No criticism on your post itself btw, I just felt it's relevant context.

He was also subjected to, well lets say "ethical questionable" experiments at Harvard.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/impromptu-man/201205/ha...

In case you didn't run in to this - the violence was related to his views on modernity.

He seems to have walked the line between spree-killer style arbitrary violence and political terrorism. It's a strange situation; there was a clear political philosophy (anarcho-primitivism, roughly), but it's one too rare to have other violent supporters. What would we have called anarcho-communist violence if there had only been one person total who engaged in it?

It's a strange case all around, but definitely made stranger by his adopting a viewpoint that was obscure, but not unique.

I couldn't get past the first paragraph in Ted Kaczynski's essay.

He makes a lot of claims, with little to no evidence. You can cherry pick notions of stoicism from it (and incorrectly claim that it can be a universally applied philosophy), but what you've linked is essentially just propaganda.

I wonder how many of the people down voting you realize Ted Kaczynski is the unabomber? (I couldn't read the article since it's blocked by work firewall, so I can't comment on it).

Is the implication that people knowing that would be more or less likely to downvote?

I mean, Kaczynski was certainly not writing calm and evidence-based prose, but he's regularly cited as saying something seminal and interesting regardless. I don't think "there's no evidence, that's pure propaganda" is untrue, but it feels like a strange objection to raise for anyone aware of what the work is.

Aren't manifestos usually meant to be a position statement or propaganda, with factual debate conducted elsewhere? It's like criticizing an instruction manual for lacking compelling characters, or a holy book for not being peer-reviewed.

Probably less likely to downvote. Kaczysnki is obviously intelligent, and from what I remember of his manifesto from the last time I read it he makes some reasonable points, but I don't think his interpretation of the world is a good one. It obviously prevented him from integrating himself productively into society. You can choose to believe the things Kaczyski believes, but I don't think it gets you anything worthwhile, or you can choose to believe other things that still recognize some of the tragedies that go on in our society but allow you to engage with them in a more productive and meaningful way.

I criticize Kaczynski's philosophy because it drove him to try to kill people (and he succeeded at least once). I don't care how "seminal" and "interesting" it is. To me, his philosophy is condemned by where it led him.

(Yes, I realize that a different person could have raised the same ideas without using a bombing campaign to try to publicize them...)

Judge the content not the man.

I cannot totally separate the content from the man, nor from the actions of the man.