While being stoic may not always be the healthiest way to deal with issues in life, the perpetual victim attitude is also not healthy. It's as if people have adopted the Jehovah's Witness attitude of every rejection being a persecution that they can revel in. Who can be the greatest victim.
Let us strive for balance and not the extremes.
But, if you accept that it was average people coming up with the best ideas that they could at the time, that they could wrong, and that you could take what is good and improve on that which is deficient - that is the right way to approach anything generally.
The same for Stoicism - don’t treat it as religious dogma - treat as ideas to wrestle with and learn from.
I'm not understanding the analogy. If you believe you are being punished for doing something wrong, how is that reveling in persecution?
Also, I'm not a Jehovah's Witness, but according to their website, they don't even believe suffering is a punishment for their sins. [0]
[0] - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-no3-2018-...
phew.
So, I think the analogy is meant to say that our current era's secular glorification of victimhood achieves a similar goal by encoding quotidienne experiences of failure or rejection with a larger meaning, in this case being part of an oppressed group.
But that's just how I read it.
edit: JW childhood, here.
If I felt this way, I’d suspect it is more likely that I am either ignorant or intolerant of the struggles of these whiners that so annoy me.
> Let us strive for balance and not the extremes.
Also, sometimes people are actually victims of s something, even if small injustice. And from experience, trying to act like it is no issue never solves it.
Being stoic is not giving up on the world altogether; it is understanding what you can control. You can control how you handle a situation if you do not view yourself as a victim. The moment you start thinking that you are a victim, you lose control of the situation.
Some people truly ARE VICTIMS - but it is rare that thinking that you have some power over the situation and there is something that you can do about it is a bad idea.
Something like this: https://butwhatfor.substack.com/p/takeaway-tuesday-facing-ad...
Thinking you are victim in those situations is using right words instead of building taboos.
The moment you admit yourself you was victim of something, you can act on it. If you don't, you end up like one of those victims that will ratilnalize their abusers behavior. There is no shortage of women who instead of admitting they are victims and admitting partner is abuser, just don't want to be those girls. And they will excuse and rationalize and keep appearances.
The idea that I was trying to get at is that you can accept that you were a victim and do something about it. We are saying the same thing - but you are saying it better, so sorry for the confusion.
Additionally, some people are victims of situations - so say, poor family background, a minority race that is looked down upon by the majority, having a chronic illness - and you can accept that is true but mentally decide that you are going to take steps to make it better, however you can.
You don't want to land in "I have no control and am a victim" when you are being victimized. That is what you are getting at too.
As a society, we don't want to create a society where anyone being abused feels like continuing to be abused is actually better than looking for help / making a change. That's not the victim's fault... that's someone choosing what they see as the best of two not attractive outcomes.
“Epictetus was telling his students there can be no such thing as being the ‘victim’ of another. You can only be ‘victim’ of yourself.”
So no, I’m not victim blaming, I’m reading the article on what it means to be stoic. Obviously you disagree with the premise. Or... does being a stoic mean you support victim blaming?
They easily turn into enablers. They end up tempted to claim injustice does not happen further gasslighting victims trying to fight.
Speaking as someone who used to think stoic attitude is superior.
Stoicism does not advocate for passivity at all. Just look at Marcus Aurelius, one of Rome’s greatest emperors.
As for what after, it would be complicated to answer. I am changing attitudes toward more activity, more willing to show up anger or other emotions when not showing them is the passivity road.
Stoicism doesn't advocate for you to be less active. Again, you're misunderstanding the base definition of stoicism. This is much of the same argument I hear about buddhism over here where people somehow think it's a religion of nihilism.
Be a victim or more angry or whatever you like, but it's not going to provide solace, meaningful help or generally better outcomes to you in any situation, plus other people will respond less effectively to it.
"In this case, Epictetus said everybody should play the game of life-that the best play it with "skill, fonn, speed and grace." But like most games, you play it with a ball. Your team devotes all its energies to getting the ball across the line.
But after the game, what do you do with the ball? Nobody much cares. It's not worth anything. The competition, the game, was the thing. You play the game with care, making sure you are never making the external a part of yourself, but merely lavishing your skill in regard to it.
The ball was just "used" to make the game possible, so just roll it under the porch and forget it, let it wait for the next game. Most important of all, just don't covet it, don't seek it, don't set your heart on it. It is this latter route that makes externals dangerous, makes them the route to slavery"
Like it is this "first focus on yourself, and then maybe the world around you might be a bit better for everyone" type mentality.
So, the best version of you could involve sharing and hoping that others follow a similar philosophy - but at the same time you need to not define yourself as having failed if others disregard it?
I think I'd go with something like "Not putting value on things outside your control."
A world where everyone doesn't care about things generally (like a popular negative generalization of Stoicism) doesn't ever work.
A world where everyone is focused on being the best version of themselves might work better than everyone being focused on making the best world. I think that gets looped into Stoic teaching as well.
Ultimately I think the problem is trying to distill it down to a single sentence. Perhaps I was in error in attempting to provide a better example of something that cannot be done adequately, it may have just caused more confusion.