Why has stoicism gained popularity in modern times?

The original stoics counted "nature" as something close to a proper God. I think not a lot is lost transmuting "nature" to be something more appropriate for modern interpretation of the philosophy though. Nature in a modern interpretation can be thought of the natural order of the universe and the way it is. Although there was also an implied fatalism (e.g. the future is predetermined) to their concept of "nature" which would not sit well with many modern stoics. Just adding some context for what "natural law" is and how modern philosophers have taken to viewing it.

I think many people lack a cohesive life philosophy and stoicism is a keen observation of the human condition that rings true today. Not a lot has truly changed and the ancient Greeks and other philosophers had as much of a valid viewpoint of the human condition as we do today. In many areas science has now filled in blanks that were given more mystical properties in ancient times. I could go on, but Stoics were not dour and fatalistic about the future, their philosophy strongly encouraged them to live in the moment.

> Does it agree with natural law? Is something in line with nature? If it's an abomination, leave it immediately.

How does one distinguish “natural law” with “my opinion on what should be”?

If you really wanted to reduce Stoicism to "a few takeaways", it's more proper to start from Stoic cosmology, since its ethics directly relates to it. According to Stoics, the universe as we know it is nothing but a manifestation of pure Spirit or Reason, out of which Matter and Force first separated, then the various forces and kinds of matter also became distinct. But everything in the universe is nonetheless ordained according to Reason, and thus is ultimately why we are also told to pursue reason in all of our actions and not let ourselves be affected by damaging 'passions'. It's a rather anti-materialistic philosophy, quite opposed to modern scientism.

You could argue some of these learnings are why it has become popular?

Millenials and the generations after them have grown up living in a perpetual state of crisis. Economically they are doomed, living from one recession to another, losing more hope of ever having a life as good as their previous generations while working twice as hard.

Climate change is inevitable and unstoppable now. Things are only going to be worse from here on.

Societal cohesion is eroding all across the world.

No wonder people want to focus on what they control and live like every day is their last, because otherwise, it is pretty miserable out there.

At my university, formal logic was taught first, then Greek/Roman philosophy, then enlightenment, then modern. And then all the rest.

If you read the story of the Scientific Revolution, the major difficulty seemed to be overthrowing the deep-seated influence of ancient thinkers, and learning to think for themselves rather than comment endless on Aristotle, Archimedes, Cicero, etc.

It's not clear academic philosophy ever really moved past this inclination—a kind of perpetual scholasticism hangs over it, at least as commonly taught. The philosophical curriculum is what it is because—well, tradition; because that's what the teachers learned. You can stretch it to have something to do with the present, or to incorporate everything humanity has come to know to be true since then, but it seems to default to something closer to historiography than anything like what these writers were doing when they wrote in the first place.

(Just venting my grievance.)

Did they ever get to Montaigne? Montaigne has a realisation of the messiness of human life, and how unbridled pursuit of virtue can cause more harm than good.

The way that I look at it is this.

Much of philosophy is about logic and analysis. Stoicism is about lived experience. When you're engaged in complex intellectual debate, there seems to me more to areas with logic and analysis. And that is what academic philosophy focuses on. But if you're trying to cope with life, Stoicism has a lot to say.

So Stoicism captures something important that a lot of people want out of philosophy. But it doesn't capture what's interesting to have complex discussions about. Let's take just one idea, https://mountainstoic.com/2015/06/03/on-the-stoic-acceptance.... How many conversations can you have about how it is better for you to go willingly along with fate than to be dragged kicking and screaming? OK, we can have another conversation about how the word "cynic" meant "dog" and so the Stoics were making fun of the Cynics in their dog and cart analogy. But really, there isn't that much to discuss. But there is certainly something to experience!

For a more extreme example, I believe that the most influential and widely read Greek moral philosopher was Aesop. But you'll almost never see his name in a book about philosophy. Why not? I think that it is because his fables, designed to speak directly to experience, offer nothing that looks like complex intellectual discussion!

Everything is reactionary nowadays it seems, even a philosophy based off on accepting change.

See, this is an article worth writing—one that engages with the content of stoic philosophy at all.

That is propably part of the explanation why stoicism became someehat popular in certain circles.

It's like a comment I originally made about mindfulness meditation.

It helps you be more effective at doing what you want to do. This might not be a good thing if what you want to do is be an asshole.

The corollary, of course, is that the potential criticism doesn't stop it from being a useful thing for you to learn. Even if you don't like how other people use it.

I love my Epicurean Stoic. A hedonist completely at peace with whatever pleasure the universe throws at them.

Really, the prequel.

Hated that cheesy book.

I actually use the Daily Stoic (the book) as a sort of journal prompt generator. It has been really great to look at various things in my life from a different lens.

That said, I also read the source material (via translations, obviously) because I think a big part of the appeal is being able to interpret what is relevant to the individual reading the material. Read it, understand it, find what resonates, learn to apply it to your life in a sustainable way.

Is _everything_ in stoicism for me? Nope, as someone else mentioned in another comment, as someone who is not religious in any way shape or form, those particular bits don't apply, and therefore I substitute in something logical for my beliefs.

So far, stoicism has been very helpful and at the very least extremely interesting.

The Daily Stoic was created by Ryan Holiday. I believe that he really did a lot to encourage current popularity for Stoicism.

But it is interesting to note that he seems to have gotten into Stoic philosophy to make up for the sins that he committed as a digital marketer. Of his books, his expose on social media and digital marketing, https://www.amazon.com/Trust-Me-Lying-Confessions-Manipulato..., is my favorite.

Everything in life is suffering. The one surefire way to "reduce suffering for ourselves and for others when we can" is letting go of our attachments, cravings and improper desires (while of course feeling free to cultivate good aspirations so as to replace those undesirable cravings - such as the virtuous aspiration of becoming a sage and helping enlighten the world at large), and Stoicism gives us lots of good suggestions as to how to achieve this.

If you think that Stoicism says that suffering is noble, then you don't understand Stoicism. It focuses on emotional tools that let you do what you think is important, without normal difficulties causing you undue suffering. And it is PERFECTLY consistent with Stoicism that what you think is important can be reducing suffering for yourself and others if you can.

Therefore a wish to reduce suffering is a reason to study Stoicism, and not a reason to reject it.

You still might not think that Stoicism is worth learning about. But you shouldn't be rejecting it for the wrong reasons.

> I tend to not like stoicism and similar ideologies that have a component of "suffering is noble."

Do you have a reference for this? This is the first time I’ve heard of the idea.

My only hesitation with Stoicism is there seems to be a path that leads from "do I have control over this?" to "not my problem". And the "not my problem" response is apathy towards things you might be able to exert a minor force towards that manifests into an appreciable outcome. Assuming we're not omniscient, and we don't know how much control we actually have over things. What seems like a terrible issue outside of control may be turned into a less severe issue with some effort. Or am I misunderstanding Stoicism?

It wasn't promoted. Philosophy in Ancient Greece was quite a lot different in that people were expected to develop their own sort of philosophy of life. Stoicism was just one among many ideological systems that kind of competed but really just more or less all co-existed - with just a bit of murder here and there, along with people's own personal interpretations on everything. It's only in this context that otherwise inexplicable things like the Pythagorean math cult [1], of Pythagorus, can make more sense.

This also applied to the 'ruling class' who would often have wildly divergent beliefs and values. IMO it this extreme diversity and freedom of thought that helped the Ancient Greeks make such incredibly rapid intellectual progress in basically every domain.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoreanism

Very higelian comment.

I still need to inoculate myself to this type of content. I was reading it and wonder why it was sliding right off my brain.

As far as the actual thought goes, I don't really see much point of intersection.

There may be some fascists that claim to follow stoicism, but ideologically/philosophically/theoretically, I don't see the connection at all.

When the organized populist socialist left is defeated and cannot effectively organize on behalf of working class people, and give secular and democratic answers to why the world often sucks and why crisis are happening...

Into the void steps far right anti-democratic authoritarian conservatism (of which one variant is fascism but also authoritarian conservative religious fundamentalism, etc). All the the conspiracy theories about the WEF and COVID vaccines and whatnot have this tiny yarn of truth attached to real injustices and inequalities, but once you start tugging them, they pull up a whole scary ball of yarn.

Obama promised "Change we can believe in" and ... they couldn't. Demoralization and right wing radicalization is a direct result.

But yes, I think you're right about various flavours of Stoicism making the rounds. They have the aura of "trad" and a kind of rational masculinity, seemingly grounded in some old pre-democratic, pre-enlightenment thought.

Myself... I prefer Spinoza's Ethics to Stoicism.

I'd argue studying any philosophy correlates with people looking to study traditional thought. Traditional thought correlates with conservatism, not Nazism, maybe Nietzsche does though.

I dunno about young people, but me and some acquaintances discovered and got into stoicism and we just mixed it up with whatever we enjoyed before and that was anarchism, leftism, critical reasoning, philosophy, science, history, etc. It was just something else that was orthogonal..

Bigots get way too much credit?

I'm getting major "working out will make you right wing" vibes from this comment.

The fundamental idea of stoicism is that I will focus on what I can control and accept what I cannot.

It only seems to ruffle the jimmies of people who want to force everyone to care about the things they care about.

At the end of the day there is very little I can do about Gaza or Ukraine or Taiwan or Inflation or a million other things that people all over the world are trying to shove down my throat. What I can do things about is being a good husband and father, serving in my local community, and striving each day to be a better person and help those around me.