Hacker News Reader

“As Rome took over, it surged in popularity because it was the one system of ethics that worked well for the rich and powerful.”

Is this really true? Were Epicureanism or middle Platonism really adverse to being wealthy and powerful? I haven't gotten that impression.

View on HN

And one of the most famous texts espousing Stoicism, the Enchiridion [1], compiles the teachings of Epictetus, a crippled former slave who "lived a life of great simplicity, with few possessions" [2]. Not exactly the rich and powerful.

[1] https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/epictetus/the-enchiridion/...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epictetus#cite_note-simpl1-11

Uh... Rome did not conquer Europe by being gathering a lot of Facebook Likes. It did it by defeating the surrounding tribes, kingdoms, and rival empires. The Legions imposed Roman law and encouraged the adoption of Roman culture and ethics. Popularity did not have all that much to do with it.

NYT reading level keeps plummeting every year to new bottoms.

The claim is not that Roman ethics was spread through popularity with the rich. The claim is that one particular strand of ethics within Roman culture did so.

That said, I am not sure that Stoicism was particularly rich-friendly, nor that it was necessarily more successful than its competitors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com