Comment by gerdesj | Hacker News Reader

Comment by gerdesj | Hacker News Reader

When Roman generals were allowed a triumphal march after a decent enough victory, a slave would be placed in the chariot. The slave was mandated to constantly repeat in the ear of the general "You are mortal" or words to that effect. The idea was to remind the general not to get above himself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozymandias gives two versions of "Ozymandias" (scroll to halfway to read them.) They are both rather good and should speak loud across the centuries.

There are many simmering tensions (and quite a few outright wars) around the world. Some of those simmering tensions, that involve the really big proponents, are starting to look quite close to the boil.

Remember Ozymandias and the futility of conceit. Romans getting a slave to murmur stuff is what we might call "value signalling" these days.

We are enjoying a relatively peaceful period in human history. It would be nice if that continued. When I say enjoying, I'm obviously not referring to Syria, Yemen and other war zones or zones of continual atrocity.

> "You are mortal" or words to that effect

'Momento mori'?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memento_mori#In_classical_anti...

> The Stoic Epictetus told his students that when kissing their child, brother, or friend, they should remind themselves that they are mortal, curbing their pleasure, as do "those who stand behind men in their triumphs and remind them that they are mortal"

Memento, not momento.

Correct. I'd edit it if I could :)

Memes not moments!

See, this is why Stoicism just isn’t for me. This curbing of the positive (emotional attachment to friends and family) to make the negative less bad and more tolerable. Stoicism strikes me as a(n effective!) defense mechanism for folks with excruciatingly terrible lives, but honestly seems to take too much of the spice out of life for my tastes. I’m a very emotional person, and I’ve learned to embrace that.

To remind yourself of your mortality when being embraced by a loved one serves to amplify the love and gratitude you experience, not to diminish it so that you’re less likely to be bummed when something bad happens. I'm afraid you have misunderstood Stoicism.

> they should remind themselves that they are mortal, curbing their pleasure

I dunno, your “amplify love” interpretation seems diametrically opposed to the “curb pleasure” writing of the stoic philosophers

Their idea of pleasure might've been drastically different from what is being proposed here.

The idea is that if you accept the fact that your loved ones may disappear at any time, you’ll appreciate them and love them more in the present. And when they do disappear, feeling that sadness is part of being human. The important thing is to accept that they’re gone, and not wallow in despair, as it’s something you can’t change.

I think the idea is not to give up on your emotions and be an inanimate machine-like creature, but indeed to embrace your emotions, to be in a deeper cohesion with them.

"The power of attachment should be as strong as the power of detachment", which is of course a much harder task than just detaching from everything.

The ancient stoics definitely seem to be talking about tempering the positive as well as the negative emotions. I listened to Aurelius, and it seemed pretty clear that this is what he was referring to.

> This curbing of the positive (emotional attachment to friends and family) to make the negative less bad and more tolerable.

I don't know enough about stoicism to defend it fully here, but it is similar to Buddhism in it's prescription of asceticism and tempering of emotions. So taking the Buddhist angle to 'attachments', the idea is not that you do not enjoy the pleasure of others, but you don't burden yourself with the attachment itself. That is, spend time with your loved ones and enjoy their company, but if they leave you tomorrow, avail yourself of your attachment to their presence, so that you can better live in their absence.

I think with stoicism, also, it's not about living a joyless existence, in order to dampen the painful moments, but to steel yourself to the reality that all things are impermanent. Keep in mind that many stoics, including Epictetus, Aurelius, and later, Seneca, lived in a bloody times. In particular, Nero ordered Seneca to kill himself, and by most accounts, he did so dispassionately. It's perhaps the character of these times that suicide is thought about differently between stoicism and Buddhism.

The point of stoicism is not curbing of positive emotions, rather accepting negative emotions as fundamental, unavoidable part of life. From personal experience, stoicism is what worked for me. It helped me deal with anxiety.

Reminding yourself that something negative can happen might strengthen your control over your emotions.

Stoicism has never stopped me at enjoying my life, in fact it made me enjoy my life more.

I have a situation with my girlfriend, she is always worried that she might lose me. I tell her I'm not afraid of losing her and she might think it is because she loves me more. But to me losing her was always a possibility due to my stoic mindset. It is not because I don't love her or appreciate time with her. I'm just at peace with possibility of something bad happening to me.

> “I’m just at peace with the possibility of something bad happening to me.”

I think this is the key thing to understand, as well as not worrying about things which are outside of your own control. If your own personal actions did not or will not be a factor in the outcome of something, whatever that something is, then it is pointless to worry or fret about it. Be concerned and happy about what is in your control!

The ancient stoics like Aurelius definitely seemed to be talking about curbing both the positive AND the negative emotions. I was surprised by this when I listened to the words of Aurelius.

Newer stoic philosophy may be different.

> Aurelius definitely seemed to be talking about curbing both the positive AND the negative emotions

I think you're right about this. But there's nothing to say you couldn't take the useful aspects of a particular philosophy and discard the rest. For example, Cato the Younger adopted the fortitude of stoic principles to filibuster the senate, though I believe he didn't behave in the manner of the stoics during his lifetime.

But, as you say, Aurelius was particularly proud of his ability to forgo pleasure, especially when it was readily available to him. I don't think this is at-all necessary to forgo pleasure in order to reduce one's own suffering. That a buddhist monk can sit still while being set alight seems to be strong evidence that pain can be assuaged by mind training alone.

Edit: I looked up self-immolation, and it turns out 'self-mummification' is a thing too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokushinbutsu

" Romans getting a slave to murmur stuff is what we might call "value signalling" these days."

? Virtue Signalling is when people brag, or indirectly brag, or overtly indicate their support for some cause, so as to highlight their virtue. It's used in a derogatory sense when people do it in a vapid manner, i.e. write things on Instagram, but otherwise their actions are shallow.

That said, that literally a slave was there to remind a General to not believe his own hype is just an incredible degree of self-awareness and social understanding of human nature by the Romans - and an amazing ability to act on it.

Could you imagine something along the lines of that these days for celebs, CEOs or in the White House?

My gosh.

Kinda reminds me of the time I "bonked" on a bike ride. I realized that I was hypoglycemic, concluded that I wasn't thinking straight... so I started saying to myself "if you do something stupid, pull over"... that turned into a bit of a chant... 5 miles later I realize that chanting to myself is a stupid way to handle the issue... 5 miles later, I actually pulled over, and ate every calorie in my pack. Saying it feels good, doing it is real good.

This is paraphrased by the great George C. Scott at the end of Patton. His version was "All victory is fleeting."

All glory is fleeting.[0]

0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPiH-LBna5I

Ah, yes. I have seen this movie over a dozen times, with my first viewing at about age 4. George C Scott's performance is more sublime than the command presence of the real Patton.

Super eerie as I’m halfway through a rewatch tonight. And to think, Oscar winner Rod Steiger turned down the role for which George Scott would win his own Oscar.

Many who knew Patton personally said much the same thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com