The Joys of Being a Stoic
nautil.us
nautil.us
That "really works" part is why approximately 80% of western therapists practice CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) which was pioneered by Albert Ellis and his team after inspiration from capital S Stoicism. Not psychoanalysis or any of the other popular 20th century approaches to the mental health of modern man, but a derivative of Stoicism that has proved very powerful.
As someone who has been reading Stoic works for 5+ years and for the last two years practicing my own derivation on a daily basis, a part of me agrees that the conflating of the modern adjective stoic and the philosophy and approach of Stoicism is indeed unfortunate. However, I do not believe that this is the primary barrier to entry, but rather the fact that practicing the philosophy is hard, slow work. Just as effective CBT asks a lot of the patient, Stoicism is not a quick fix. In some ways I see the misnomer as a tiny hurdle to entry that weeds out those only interested in dialectic rather than the hard work of changing and crafting one's character.
I would be dishonest if I didn't also point out that Ancient Stoicism has some fundamental problems that are also likely a barrier to the thoughtful. One of its founding pillars is a teleological universe which, thanks to advances in science, we now know to be false. Further, Stoicism glosses over aspects of human behavior (such as addiction and trauma) and is outdated in its approach to inter-community relations, approaching social contracts in the context of small, warlike city states (and later in the context of an authoritarian, imperialistic empire).
A modern, widely adoptable descendant of Ancient Stoicism would be quite different and most certainly wouldn't be called Stoicism. In the end, I don't believe the layperson's misunderstanding of Stoicism needs to be fixed. Truth needs no defense - the predictive and eudaimonic power of Stoicism is there for anyone to pluck if they have the impulse to reach for it and the courage to do the hard work of applying and reforming the self, along with the philosophy.
That said, it's awesome, you all should check it out.
Is that actually outdated? There are fewer "entire community mobilized against existential threat" type wars these days, but there seems to be a constant brew of conflict world wide (proxy wars, drone strikes, etc). Frankly, I find Stoicism one of the best ways to cope with the two quotes I keep hearing in my mind: "high school never ends" and "war never changes".
Finally - We're just on the very tip of the cusp of the effects of climate change. Entire regions supported by subsistence farming for millennia will within a lifetime become a literal hell. As we go from a world of seemingly endless abundance to constrained resources (arable land, potable water, etc.) I think "war like city states" more closely represents our future than anyone really wants to accept.
Is my community my favorite subreddit, or my physical neighbors who are actively voting my rights away? Should I support my country of birth and residence in a trade war that damages my partner's family and her country of birth? We have a duty to protect the best parts of our communities - does that mean I should or shouldn't accept that job to work on nuclear weapons? At what point is it just to emigrate to NZ rather than stay and try to work toward solutions? My family is literally divided on this point, with several members now enjoying a covid-free existence on the south island.
These questions didn't really exist 2500 years ago. The boundaries of human communities were clearer, in my view, mostly because there were hard barriers to emigration and global communication. But to your point, that doesn't mean the fundamental principles have changed, and maybe things aren't all that different after all! We just have to be comfortable with asking and answering our own questions and applying principles to our modern times.
Sure, some core axioms traditionally did follow from their physics, but I've found that it's reasonably easy to build a different foundation for those axioms.
Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerated_experiential_dynam...
0: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/stoicism-on-fire/id136...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feeling_Good:_The_New_Mood_The...
I wouldn’t call myself a Stoic, but I have a lot of anxiety from my job and life and found this book helpful in changing the way I think and feel about situations in life.
For me the primary barrier is that I don't see how they actually apply to me. Their explanations start from places that I don't recognize, let alone know how to reach. As far as I can tell, they simply don't talk about the sorts of experiences that I regularly struggle with (basically a bunch of stuff that sort of looks like a cross between a neurodevelopmental condition and a depressive disorder, but without any specific diagnosis or treatment really sticking).
Have you ever run into a problem with some software and gone to its tech support site, only to find that the knowledge base is just a bunch of descriptions of how the software is supposed to work, written for people who are using the software wrong? Click the X button, it says, and then when Y happens you can do Z. But you went looking for support because the X button was disabled, so you couldn't really click it in the first place. To me, CBT and Stoic explanations of the human experience hit a lot like that.
It’s like I need to go through a process with the right philosophical “attitude” in order to distill the most useful understanding of the philosophy. Reflection helps but it’s far too nebulous for me to leverage it for real, meaningful personal gains. It’s just a facet of the bigger picture.
No, we don't. We know that if a teleological universe is true that it is a lot more complex than previously thought, e.g. that evolution would have to be a part of it. That isn't a disproof of a teleological universe though.
Science (aka reason) fundamentally cannot invalidate a theory of a teleological universe since it is a metaphysical claim.
"But the very numbness that can be so adaptive to survival, can also erect walls that stand in the way of human attachment and trust. I am all for Stoic teachings of empowerment of agency. But we are, as Marcus Aurelius knew well, citizens of the universe, attached to each other, and deeply affected by the social worlds and practices and institutions of which we are a part. To forget our membership and responsibilities in the social world and how that affects our life chances is to forget who we are."[1]
I am by no means well-versed in Stoicism, just have found much of it useful personally. Sherman has done the best job I can find of speaking to striking a balance between stoic detachment but still maintaining the emotional connections that bond us as humans.
This isn't new to Sherman, she is just reforming for our modern times similar arguments made by the ancients. None of the ancient Stoics endorsed unfeeling detachment. They endorsed detachment from things not in our control, but they rejected the Cynic school's conclusion that living according to nature meant asceticism. To the contrary, to ancient Stoics civil action and involvement was a duty, and enjoying our emotions to the fullest was the very reward eudaimonia promised.
Though of course it's good to focus our efforts on what we have hope of changing, I think the Stoics miss the importance of actively seeking out ways that we can make things better for ourselves and others. They instead cast everything as "duty" in conformance to "nature", two very slippery concepts.
Scholars have noted that Stoicism flourished in environments where people had to cope with severe disempowerment (such as being caught up in the politics of the Roman Empire.) I hope most of us are not in situations where we have to resort to the 100% stoic mindset.
Epictetus's Stoicism was but one of dozens of varieties in its 2500 year history. That is to say there are no perfect models, and all require some reform in personal application. Or, you do you, as the kids say!
This makes sense in the context of some of Sherman’s books. Her book “The Stoic Warrior” is aimed specifically at modern military members. I suspect it’s useful precisely because they are often in situations where they have limited control.
I think it does not seem realistic, because it’s not easy. You can’t just wake up and start doing that. It takes time and a lot of introspection and this is probably where people mostly give up.
This is one of the reasons why I love Meditations. Reading Marcus, one of the truly great men of his time, you can see him struggling mightily to adhere to his values. As a work it's unique in that it shows with incredible intimacy that living a healthy life, however you choose to do it, is a continuous journey with curves and switchbacks and steps forward and backward.
I've been lately thinking about life, emotions, relationships, etc. I don't know if I am naive but when I contemplate these things it makes complete sense.
The premise for my philosophy is that life is absurd with no pre-defined purpose unless the one running the simulation starts tweeting.
So I accept the absurdity and take it as an opportunity to do whatever will make me feel the most alive with a peaceful mind. (root node)
Now thinking in terms of first principle and contemplating situations I hardly ever get angry or sad (lately) because I'm mutating from my natural instinct of reaction (where the unconscious mind kicks in) to a more robust framework of response (why? -> okay -> work on it). (work in progress) If I know that something is not under my control, I'd probably not waste any energy on it unless it conflicts with my root node if it does then I'd switch to the problem-solving mode.
Most of my actions are just functions aim towards maximizing the root node, and the above framework kinda makes it efficient.
In my POV, if I can pattern match the cue for anger using the above framework with enough iteration I don't really think that it's unrealistic to control anger or any emotion.
I have myself wondered about the place of something like "righteous anger" in Stoicism, or other negative emotions that drive us to do the correct things. But I believe the Stoics would say that you should do the thing because it's the right thing to do, not because anger or sadness drove you to them. I think Seneca addresses this [1].
He 'taught' you how to live a good life, in a journal that was 'his personal journal, not meant for publication'. It clearly reads like it was meant to be published and his son turned out to be commodes, easily top 5 worst emporers of all time.
That's like criticising Jesus because he was betrayed by one of his disciples.
My personal philosophy is to imitate success. Marcus was born to the purple so it makes sense to limit and find balance in the stoics before him. True stoics have this 'lack of free will' twinge to them, where bad things happening is a way of life and you have to just roll with the punches.
Let's look at another Stoic and his accomplishments, seneca. He was exiled, came back and tutored Nero (Another crazy emperor) and ended up killing himself.
Why is Stoicism held to such a high standard when it's examples are so poor. It seems to turn people into this laconic acceptance instead of having fun and doing stupid shit for the sake of it.
Rather than a weakness, the teleology inherent in Stoicism is part of what makes it attractive against the ubiquitous reductive materialism of the modern world. One can just as easily point to materialism's lack of teleology as a critical weakness that ruins any virtues it might otherwise have had.
I also disagree that his journal reads as though it was meant for publication. In fact I get the opposite impression when reading it, that a man like Aurelius would have been mortified to know some of these entries would be known and re-read by audiences of millions of people for thousands of years to come.
It's also not clear how having a son who turned out to be a bad man and heir would count against a philosophy that explicitly rejects the idea that we can control such things.
Stocism doesn't work for me, I like to wear nice clothes, indulge in nice dinners when i should have saved more money, do stupid things like travel (Which seneca seems to have a strong dislike for) and have a general unbalanced life, where i get drunk with my friends and hate my life for the next three days. Life is about the highs and the lows, who needs balance.
I'm reminded here of the beautiful quote by Bernard Shaw:
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman
Various religious, spiritual and even political belief systems through time and space take a different position on this. Buddhism in particular encourages an acceptance of the world as it-is (while also encourages small acts within that world to reduce suffering). There are many religious systems in which one becomes better only as a spiritual, inward matter, not by changing the world.
I seem to remember Elon Musk saying that people shouldn't aspire to be like him because it wouldn't be a good life for most people.
Some people are wired for that sort of thing, I know I'm not.
Back then one could generally travel from one end of the Roman Empire to the other (e.g., from England to Persia) safely, on well-built and -guarded roads, needing knowledge of but one language and possession of but one currency — all this despite traveling through a dozen+ diverse cultures and nations on the trip. A few centuries later, and for more than a millennia afterward, that would be impossible. But Epictetus would still categorize the success of such a journey as something out of our control: What if a robber attacks you, in spite of the general safety of the roads? What if you fall off your horse and snap a leg? What if you get sick? What if a storm unexpectedly hits during a sea voyage?
Similarly, on a trip to the moon: What if the rocket fails to launch? What if it launches but explodes in the atmosphere? What if your second-stage engine fails to fire? What if, en route to the moon, an electrical malfunction depletes your oxygen reserves to dangerously low levels? Etc. I pick these examples because they've all actually happened, despite our best efforts to the contrary.
The moral question Epictetus considers is not, What is it Man (in the abstract) is capable (sometimes) of doing? The question is, what is truly under your control? What is the interior castle into which no one and no thing can invade if you do not permit it to enter? What are the implications of having such an interior fortress, and how might we leverage that control to live happy lives?
The answers to those questions have not changed in the thousands of years since Epictetus asked them. Stoicism is a perennial philosophy.
In it, he lists anger as the opposite of fear. And shame is the combination of fear and disgust (the opposite of trust).
Anger not turned to constructive action is an unhealthy emotion. Unfortunately, that kind of nuance isn't gonna get captured in an intro to Stoicism blog post.
Stoicism teaches that, in those moments where you feel that flash of anger, pause and ask yourself: what in this situation can I do that's in my control that can lead to a constructive outcome?
If the answer is absolutely nothing, then the goal is to recognize that and let that anger subside because it's fruitless and harmful. This is the essence of the dichotomy of control: if you can't control something, then getting worked up about it only harms yourself.
But it's very rare that we have absolutely no control in a situation, and in those cases where we have some measure of control, Stoicism as a philosophy challenges us to find the constructive action that lets us turn that challenge into an opportunity while allowing us to replace that anger with a sense of constructive purpose.
And in fact choosing acceptance is an action itself, and therefore such situations become opportunities for personal growth that hopefully leads us to becoming a more kind, patient, humane individual.
Anyway, that's not to say that Stoicism is a cure-all or that it's good for everyone. Maybe for you it's the wrong choice!
But your comment is a perfect example of how people continuously misunderstand Stoic thought and then disregard it out of hand, which is precisely what this article is all about.
He's the one that said anger is an unhealthy emotion. So my comment may be a perfect example of people misunderstanding Stoicism, but I'm merely the messenger. The guy who wrote the article is the one that made the claim.
By the way, I don't think this is a small or unimportant point. Suppressed anger is extraordinarily unhealthy. Telling people their anger is bad for them just makes the problem worse.
Well, good thing no one is telling folks they should suppress their anger, this article included. In fact, if I had to summarize the article in one sentence it would be "Despite what you might think, Stocism isn't about suppressing your emotions." It's like, practically the thesis of the piece.
At this point I'm kinda wondering if you're reading your own biases into the text.
But all I said was that I stopped reading as soon as the author said anger is unhealthy. Which the author did. And I think is bad.
> You desire to LIVE ‘according to Nature’? Oh, you noble Stoics, what fraud of words! Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power—how COULD you live in accordance with such indifference? To live—is not that just endeavouring to be otherwise than this Nature? Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different? And granted that your imperative, ‘living according to Nature,’ means actually the same as ‘living according to life’—how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be?
> In reality, however, it is quite otherwise with you: while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature, you want something quite the contrary, you extraordinary stage-players and self-deluders! In your pride you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you insist that it shall be Nature ‘according to the Stoa,’ and would like everything to be made after your own image, as a vast, eternal glorification and generalism of Stoicism! With all your love for truth, you have forced yourselves so long, so persistently, and with such hypnotic rigidity to see Nature FALSELY, that is to say, Stoically, that you are no longer able to see it otherwise— and to crown all, some unfathomable superciliousness gives you the Bedlamite hope that BECAUSE you are able to tyrannize over yourselves—Stoicism is selftyranny—Nature will also allow herself to be tyrannized over: is not the Stoic a PART of Nature? ...
> But this is an old and everlasting story: what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual Will to Power, the will to ‘creation of the world,’ the will to the causa prima.
you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you insist that it shall be Nature ‘according to the Stoa,’ and would like everything to be made after your own image - I know of no Stoic, ancient or modern, who advocates this.
what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. - the Stoics consistently cautioned against dogma, evidenced in practice by the abundance of various interpretations - Marcus Aurelius's interpretation differs in ways from Seneca's, which differs in ways from Epictetus's, Zeno's, Chrysippus's, etc. A common saying among modern Stoics is "Stoicism has no pope."
As for constructive responses, google "responding to nietzsche on stoicism."
Nietzsche is not saying that Stoics are consciously doing this, rather that it's an unconscious process - and in Nietzsche's view, a rather fundamental one that far from just the Stoics are involved in. One of Nietzsche's central tenets is that pretty much all 'knowledge' and 'belief' is just us projecting our interpretations (rooted in what we would now term cognitive biases, value judgements, sensations, etc) on reality and then "reading" them back to ourselves as the ground truth, which is in fact unknowable as such.
In general, Nietzsche regards philosophical attitudes as determined by physiology and environment, and in fact says later that Stoicism is a fine medicine for certain kinds of people in some periods of time.
Something which Nietzsche is guilty of himself. But that road leads to postmodernism.
His focus instead is that, given the essential failure of metaphysics, to instead try to destroy as many as the 'old idols' rooted in these cognitive biases and value judgements - to see to what extent life could endure the incorporation of small-t truth (Nietzsche suspected that many errors were actually necessary for life) - and to re-evaluate our values with the (arbitrary!) view of increasing the health of the human animal. And he makes clear that this depends on the person: "the exception should not try to become the rule." Nietzsche's philosophy is explicitly not for everyone.
In terms of practical life advice, Nietzsche ends on somewhat common ground with the Stoics -
> My formula for greatness in a human being is amor fati: that one wants nothing to be different, not forward, not backward, not in all eternity. Not merely bear what is necessary, still less conceal it—all idealism is mendacity in the face of what is necessary—but love it.
By the way, one of the difficulties of a philosophy explicitly not for everyone is that it cannot avoid turning into us-versus-them, followed shortly by the wise and knowing versus the misguided, misled, and heathen sheep. One lesson of the 20th century (if it needed teaching again) was that philosophy can be weaponized.
(One nice thing about (my interpretation of) epicureanism and possibly Zhuangzi is that the sheep may be heathens, but I don't need to care.)
He poses the question "Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different?" A central point of Stoicism is answering no to that. Recognizing that our preferences are merely preferences, not needs, and that we can go forward without them controlling our attitude toward what life brings.
Of course we have preferences, and we make evaluations, and we endeavor to change. But Stoicism is partly about grasping those things loosely rather than staking our emotional well-being on them.
Even the cutesy "live according to life": does anyone deny that we often resist life? We know there will be setbacks, losses, death, etc., and instead of anticipating and flowing with them we are surprised and dismayed.
Nietzsche valued a sort of resistance to life. But it's a strawman to treat that value as axiomatic and dismiss Stoicism as inherently contradictory.
An extreme, but notable flaw.
Everything in moderation, including moderation was what they liked to say on the stoics, I think.
Both viewpoints have merit but it depends on the circumstances of the person reading it which has more value for their particular situation.
In any case the request was for "more Stoic-oriented" forums, not necessarily "the most Stoic" forum.
It's an interesting ideology, but in its extreme form it goes hard against the grain of our culture and requires strong will to sustain. And in my experience it's hard to find a partner who buys into it.
Fundamental idea of a commercial culture. - Today one can see coming into existence the culture of a society of which commerce is as much the soul as personal contest was with the ancient Greeks and as war, victory and justice were for the Romans. The man engaged in commerce understands how to appraise everything without having made it, and to appraise it according to the needs of the consumer, not according to his own needs; "who and how many will consume this?" is his questions of questions. This type of appraisal he then applies instinctively and all the time: he applies it to everything, and thus also to the production of the arts and sciences, of thinkers, scholars, artists, statesmen, peoples and parties, of the entire age: in regard to everything that is made he inquires after supply and demand in order to determine the value of a thing in his own eyes. This becomes the character of an entire culture, thought through in the minutest and subtlest detail and imprinted in every will and every faculty: it is this of which you men of the coming century will be proud... – Nietzsche, Daybreak, 1880-1
Seneca’s work doesn’t need it as far as I’ve read, but some of the other texts could use that
"That which convinces is not necessarily true, it is merely convincing" -- Nietzsche
Nietzsche is happy to take the Stoic phrase of "according to nature," but isn't happy to use the Stoic view of nature. Instead, Nietzsche substitutes his own view, pretending as if the perspectives are one and the same.
It's hard for me to believe that Nietzsche didn't know enough about Stoicism to understand that he was arguing in bad faith. Despite presumably knowing better, he falls into the same misunderstanding that most novices do about Stoicism - that it somehow glorifies indifference at the cost of purpose, mercy, justice, regard, and so on.
"Indifferent" is a dangerous word to use in this context. Here I use it in the contemporary sense of "apathy." But it's important to note that "indifference" to a Stoic is more subtle - meaning neither good nor evil (or - dare I say - beyond good and evil), but not implying actual apathy.
Stoics did not view nature in this way. Most notable Stoics believed in Zeus - and consequentially in intelligent design. They held reverence not for an empty, random, and nihilistic nature, but for one of purpose, order, and beauty.
It's clear by observing the life of any notable Stoic that they valued the same qualities Nietzsche accuses them of disavowing. Pairing Nietzsche's criticisms alongside the very first book in Marcus Aurelius' Meditations:
Are Stoics really "profligate" (wildly extravagant/shamelessly immoral)?
> From my grandfather Verus I learned good morals... From my mother... simplicity in my way of living, far removed from the habits of the rich.
Are Stoics really "without purpose and regard"?
> From Apollonius I learned... undeviating steadiness of purpose
Are Stoics really "indifferent without measure" or "without mercy and justice"?
> From my brother Severus, to love my kin, and to love truth, and to love justice... a polity administered with regard to equal rights and equal freedom of speech, and the idea of a kingly government which respects most of all the freedom of the governed
Indeed, Nietzsche is so far off the mark that he would have benefited from observing the same virtues that Marcus enumerates:
> From Rusticus I received the impression... to abstain from rhetoric... and to read carefully, and not to be satisfied with a superficial understanding of a book
Nietzsche was content to have a superficial understanding of Stoicism - or at least was content to mischaracterize it. The Stoics have much to say of their view of nature - and much of it I discard without the intelligent design component. But that doesn't change that Nietzsche cannot honestly substitute his view of nature for the Stoics and fairly criticize them for the contradictions that arise.
Part of the beauty of the Stoic philosophy is that it's far more forgiving than Nietzsche. Marcus also learned from Rusticus:
> with respect to those who have offended me by words, or done me wrong, to be easily disposed to be pacified and reconciled, as soon as they have shown a readiness to be reconciled
Marcus wouldn't mind Nietzsche's criticisms very much.
Edited for formatting
His argument is that, because Nature is not as the Stoics describe it, they cannot be living as they claim to be. The contradiction doesn't arise from Nietzsche making that substitution, but from the Stoics having mischaracterised Nature to begin with (according to his view of Nature).
He demonstrates the contradiction by describing what living in accordance with Nature would really look like, and it's not what the Stoics claim to be doing. He’s not arguing in bad faith or from ignorance. He’s trying to show that Stoic ethics are ungrounded because their view of Nature is wrong, which isn't all that different to his arguments against Christianity. Once "God is dead" you don't get to keep the ethical framework that's logically grounded on his existence.
It is worth noting that many concepts the ancient Greeks invented have no close - and in some cases not even an approximate - analog in modern English.
He does this in order to support the central thesis of Beyond Good and Evil that emerges later in the work - that the men of the next generations should rather re-examine moral value itself, and then be the maker of new value systems. The ubermensch idea, though not mentioned in Beyond Good and Evil, is a direct descendent of this idea.
I haven't really read any Stoic philosophy so I don't have the context, and this excerpt seems to attack a word that wasn't covered in the linked article. Or at least it's not clear to me how the ideas discussed in the article fit into this idea of "a being like Nature". Can you give a bit more background?
Nietzsche might actually be misreading the stoics here (is that heretical to say?), or I am not privy to the angle of his attack.
The stoic viewpoint is to play your role according to where you find yourself. Suffering is unavoidable. A stoic accepts this fact and does not let it perturb him. An ideal stoic fears neither pain nor death, and goes willingly to death when called. This in my view is what is meant by ‘living in accordance with nature.’ Respect for the bounds of your existence, and not giving into the depression and self pity that can accompany a less than lavish or comfortable existence.
Not really a philosophy of ‘raging against the dying of the light.’
“Accept the things to which fate binds you, and love the people with whom fate brings you together, but do so with all your heart.” ~ Aurelius
"Our life is what our thoughts make of it." ~ Aurelius
"It's a rough road that leads to the heights of greatness." ~ Seneca
> Never to give the impression of anger or any other passion, but to combine complete freedom of passion with the greatest of human affection. - Aurelius
The greatest of human affection, the love of one another, is clearly not passionless, as we understand it.
We're supposed to get excited about family, about love, about truth and justice, according to other parts of the Meditations. Life isn't meant to be empty and disconnected. Its just about choosing things that are worth getting excited about.
> Put an end once for all to this discussion of what a good man should be, and be one.
because people who have a stake in things going a certain way, would prefer it to go that way. Otherwise why bother trying if you have no control over the outcome. If we're all going to die, which is h ultimate and final fate of everyone, why do anything? The problem with stoicism is it is kinda a dead end and it creates unrealistic expectations. Ideally, people would not worry so much about things outside of their control, but that is not how people work. Much of modern scientific progress hinges on people trying to control their environment, such as treating disease. Should we just give up on that.
“If a man were to make it his purpose to take a true aim with a spear or arrow at some mark, his ultimate end, corresponding to the ultimate good as we pronounce it, would be to do all he could to aim straight … whereas the actual hitting of the mark would be in our phrase ‘to be chosen’ but not ‘to be desired.'”
So a Stoic might try to effectuate a particular outcome in, say, her political life -- choosing actions that align with the outcome, but does not "desire" it -- meaning her self-worth and happiness is tightly bound with whether she gets it or not.
It's a fair thing to ask how psychologically tenable this is. Some people may struggle with this kind of framing. I personally have found it liberating.
Marco Aurelio's meditations came from his life, each of his thoughts was connected to an often painful mistake/experience and was meant for his future self.
It isn't easy to transfer this behavioral wisdom from one person to another just through writing.
Abstract thinkings without a strong connection to your own reality (experiences) often don't produce a strong enough effect to apply them in your own difficult situations.
In the dialogue, Socrates recounts the story of the god Theuth, or Ammon, who offers the king Thamus the gift of letters: This, said Theuth, will make the Egyptians wiser and give them better memories; it is a specific both for the memory and for the wit. Thamus replied: O most ingenious Theuth, the parent or inventor of an art is not always the best judge of the utility or inutility of his own inventions to the users of them. And in this instance, you who are the father of letters, from a paternal love of your own children have been led to attribute to them a quality which they cannot have; for this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.
(Phaedrus, Plato)
[0] - https://dailystoic.com
Naturally, the obvious criticism is that while you may not be unhappy, it may an indication that you are not actually living. At best, you exist without allowing yourself to 'feel'. To live is to feel pain.
- all of this is pretty obvious stuff, why all the books and discussions
- it's weird to identify yourself with in ideology and call yourself "a stoic"
I really don't get the hype about it.
It's also important to understand that Stoicism is a serious, well-argued philosophy comprised of arguments that dialogue or disagree with rival philosophical schools, like Epicureanism or Aristotelian philosophy. It contains many arguments that I feel are decidedly not obvious:
* Virtue is the only good * Happiness resides in only what we fully control (our response to external circumstances), and not in things that are outside our control, or partially under the influences of things outside our control * Wisdom (the ability to exercise reason to make the wisest choices) is the most valuable faculty * We are fundamentally cosmopolitan, and see ourselves as part of a broadly human polis, instead of seeing ourselves as only Athenian, American, Indian, etc * We must act for the social good, even though we are not guaranteed success (i.e. Stoicism is NOT quietism; this particular claim puts Stoicism against the Epicureans)
In fact, many people would find the fundamental framing of Stoic ethics dubious. If you're a deontologist, you'll be irritated that Stoicism often doesn't give an exact answer to a particular ethical question -- it instead emphasizes crafting a good character, and deducing the right response from what a good person would do, given the circumstances. Surely you'd want an exact answer that obtains in all situations -- none of this wishy washy virtue ethics stuff.
money, and people are always looking for self-help and the "one simple fix" that will make their lives better. Ryan Holiday has made a lot of money selling books about stoicism, as evidently there is a lot of interest in the subject.
That's where the words of previous Stoics, or a recent Podcast, or advice from /r/stoicism helps many of us to make that choice at that moment, before it has become obvious or easy in hindsight.
Discussed at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15799592
Probably the best way to manage it, is to be objective about your reality. And then there are other tools, like reframing, taking setbacks as challenges to improve and become more resilient, and many more.
End of the day, we're tiny ants on this space rock, enjoy it, and take it as it comes.
edit: typo
Edit: instead of hitting the downvote perhaps someone could have done a little explanation, or pointed me in the right direction. The wiki page corrects my misapprehension, which is more than anyone else has done here, to wit
Ancient stoics are often misunderstood because the terms they used pertained to different concepts than today. The word "stoic" has since come to mean "unemotional"
I'm not an expert, but would say that they are not. As far as I can tell the modern word 'stoic' does not give a good idea of what Stoicism is about. In regards to feelings, I believe the idea behind Stoicism is happiness can be found as a result of not letting ourselves suffer from 'unreasonable' thoughts.
To quote wikipedia: "... the Stoics held that unhappiness and evil are the results of human ignorance of the reason in nature. If someone is unkind, it is because they are unaware of their own universal reason, which leads to the conclusion of unkindness. The solution to evil and unhappiness then is the practice of Stoic philosophy: to examine one's own judgments and behavior and determine where they diverge from the universal reason of nature."
Only in colloqial use, and mostly among people who don't bother to look up words they don't know.
The (Oxford) Dictionary still says: "enduring pain and hardship without showing one's feelings or complaining."
When people infer meaning only by context(i.e. learning words only by how other people use it) it is easy to miss part of the original meaning. "Hardship" in this case.
It is a common occurance in language, and at some point the dictionary has to change accordingly. But if it's a word that only exists to convey a more specific meaning than another word ("unemotional"), it does not suddenly lose that meaning just because people are uninformed about its proper definition.
Which is to say, the terms the ancient stoics used do not pertain to different concepts today. If so, we would lack the necessary word to describe that philosophy and would need to invent a new one.
That's literally what the article is about...
His patreon: https://www.patreon.com/MassimoPigliucci
His free blog, which is now deprecated (but has a ton of existing content): https://howtobeastoic.wordpress.com/