Hacker News Reader

Comment by jaabe | Hacker News Reader

I think there is a lot of value in stoicism, but it never really worked for me, because accepting things aren’t my thing.

Instead I prefer the Socratic approach to issues, where you actually try and discover solutions together. I know stoics took a lot of lessons from Socrates, and that you can’t be Socratic without a tad of stoicism, but I’ve also found asking questions to be better (for me) than letting things slide.

Like with the cab-driver taking the long route. Sure you can let it slide, but I’ve never had politely asking about it break my tranquility.

View on HN

I'm hardly an authority but I've been doing daily stoic journaling for about 9 months. Stoicism isn't about passivity, though I can see how people think that, it's about 1. Accepting your circumstances 2. Understanding what you can and can't control 3. not having your happiness be dependent on outcomes but rather your actions. So in your cab example you could say something to the cab driver. You could simply get out of the cab and get another. You could let the cab driver take you the long way and pay more because it isn't worth the hassle. Any would be an appropriate stoic response. The unstoic response would be to sit and seethe or complain about it later. At it's core stoicism seems to be just a system of empowered decision making. Or at least that's how I use it.

Right on.

But the fundamental lesson is that the cab driver's behaviour is not under your control. How you react to it, is. You might then decide to let it slide, or mention it, or even make a fuss about it - but you deploy the anger instrumentally by your volition; you are not consumed and controlled by your anger.

I’ve got a friend who would act something like the parent comment: if a taxi guy diverges from the most efficient route, the friend would ask the driver why did that happen immediately.

The truth is that I know that if I were in a situation like that as a drver, it would not take me much to lie to my friend if I needed to (whether I am taking advantage of him or it just happened this way). There are just too many variables for anyone to be able to call bullshit on all of them at once.

Some people just like feeling in control. They just can’t admit they are not more often than not.

There's also the chance that the longer route taken by the cab driver was for a reason. He knows about construction, or it's busy near there this time of day, or whatever. He might be doing it because it's safer. Of course, yes, he might be doing it because he's trying to bilk you out of a few bucks.

Unless I take a cab all the time or something, I just chalk it up to the "cost of doing business" and go on with my day.

A very similar idea is expressed here [1] . Instead of lamenting loss, frame it as a purchase of tranquility.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/9umsg0/starting_w...

I make a distinction between accepting what's out of one's control (in it's immediacy) and dealing with injustice or undesirable situations. Such that, I don't accept bullshit. But shit happens. I've found this is a relatively low-stress approach. My vehicle was hit in a parking lot, with no information left and no camera capture - the appropriate response for me is "whatever". Had I caught the person in action though, I would have pursued it to the extent I could, as a matter of course.

I guess the point is you just can't defeat life. Just like in the Rocky movies, life will hit you eventually. It's easy to forget that while we are young and dreaming of being the next billionaire, but it's better to be prepared. You can be a Stoic and still achieve things, as long as you accept that you are not entitled to any achievements.

>You can be a Stoic and still achieve things

I feel this proves the point: Marcus Aurelius was Emperor of Rome. That's an accomplishment, surely :)

Well he did have the advantage of birth and education.

Wasnt socrates more of about challenging others or proving them wrong rather then cooperative searching for solution? Discovering solutions together would require both parties to take risk, propose ideas and have them challenged. Afaik, there was no such symmetry.

Stoicism isn’t about passive acceptance necessarily. When the barbarian hordes attacked, Marcus didn’t just shrug and stay home. I see it more as an opponent to the prevailing philosophy that anything can be overcome if you just work hard and struggle enough.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com