Stoicism's appeal to the rich and powerful (2019)

I guess the former focuses on Christian as a social construct and includes whoever claim to be Christian or even influenced by Christian thinking. The latter focuses on Christian as what it is ought to be and knows that all are sinners, including Christians, and I’d fall short of the standards the Bible uphold. Among these Christians, they know that the majority of Christians has gone astray.

I don’t think this is unique to Christianity. A similar key concept in Hinduism is “karma”.

Yes, but this is something people say in times of grief, for the comfort of the grieving -- it's not a consistent moral philosophy that they hold to in other parts of their life, nor is it meant to be. There are better answers than this, but they are oftentimes much harder to process, and much more likely to accidentally pain the one who is grieving.

> It's arguably a necessary tenet for Christianity to hold together as a coherent belief system.

No, it's not. You're correct in that "you need some way to explain why bad things still happen", but we've come a long, long way from "stuff just happens". For example, the Catholic view is that suffering is A) not committed by, but permitted by, God; B) necessary for salvation and free will to coexist. In this view, evil is in essence a deviation from the will of God -- but free will must, in this conception, at the very least include the free will to choose to follow or choose to oppose God's own will. To quote St. Aquinas, paraphrasing St. Augustine: "Since God is the supremely highest good, he would not allow evil to exist in his creation unless he were so all powerful that he could even make good out of evil". More broadly, suffering is seen as having not only a redemptive but an edifying nature that can ultimately bring us closer to God.

I understand that this might sound repulsive on first glance, but frankly I do not think there is an answer to "why is there evil?" which would not be at initial examination -- certainly, it's no worse than the idea that we are simply here to suffer by random caprice, and that that suffering is itself meaningless, nothing but a failure on your own (meaningless) value function. Yes, one might hope that things 'could have been a different way' -- but what would a world without any grief, any suffering even be like? This is the point of the whole pleasure-machine/experience-machine thought experiment: many people would very much rather live in this world, with all its suffering, than one totally blank, devoid of depth and complexity. One might even go as far as to assert that no 'good' God could permit such terrible depths of suffering -- congenital illness, rape, torture, child slavery, so on and so forth. But so many times, in exploring theories of computational complexity or abstract mathematics or informatics, we see that what might have seemed to be simple assumptions can have enormous, essential effects: deciding whether all programs written for a FSM with one stack is simple, but for one with two stacks the problem becomes impossible. Perhaps it is impossible to have a world "with matter, with living things made from matter, with free will for those living beings, but without the ability of one living thing to enslave another". We cannot know -- but if there is a truly transcendent, omniscient God, then He certainly would.

For a more modern (more philosophically-flavored) take, I'd suggest reading Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling: he explores the binding of Isaac with the idea being to address this very question. In particular, he strongly disagrees with Kant's idea that God would simply choose to follow the categorical imperative, and emphasizes instead the transcendence of God and divine morality. But as an existentialist I think his writing is much closer to how we as members of the modern world can feel than philosophers/theologians who came before him.

1. Pedagogical (the one you mentioned) - Evil exists so that we may grow and learn. All evil will be used to create even greater good. Quintessential example would be the story of Job in the Old Testament.

2. Eschatological — Evil is a by-product of having any creation in time whatsoever, and will be fully restored at the end of all things. Another way of thinking of this one is that evil is "non-being", the absence of the good. A lack, a privation. Espoused by Augustine (and before him, Neoplatonism in general), and Aquinas.

3. Freedom-oriented — Evil (even natural evil) is a broken state of affairs caused by the freedom of people, who use that freedom against God. God nonetheless allows this because he allows us the dignity to choose. The official teaching of the Catholic Church. The straightforward reading of Genesis 2.

None of these say that "This <bad thing> is not bad" - Christianity acknowledges the existence of evil "as evil". However, with God's grace, evil may be healed or made to serve higher purposes.

It's not a tenet, because it's not presented as a teaching that "bad things are good things".

However, we often label things as "good" and "bad," which are overly simplistic for many things in life. A child dying is unequivocally a bad thing. But if your faith deepens through the course of grieving, then a good thing happens from that bad thing. It doesn't nullify the bad thing. It doesn't magically transform it into a good thing. But your faith being made stronger is a good thing, while your child dying is a bad thing.

My understanding is this is the Biblical principle of redemption. Not to be confused with salvation. It's used to refer to God's ability to make good happen from a bad thing, or to "redeem" a bad thing. In this way, redemption can also refer to salvation because man is inherently bad, but through Jesus's death on the cross, man can be redeemed. Once again, bad things happen, but good things can come from them.

Again, it's important to note that the Bible does not teach BAD == GOOD. It teaches that bad things can be redeemed for good outcomes.

I am not a theologian, but that's my understanding of it.

I adopt rather the opposite virutes. Imprudence, risk, throwing-your-self-at-a-wall-until-you-cant, intemperance (conflict, debate, disagreement, competition) and pragmatism (address what is rather than what should be).

Behind each of the stoic virutues is a psychological position to dettach, dissociate and live in a more abstracted conceptual space. This can be theraputic if you are in grief, etc.

Outside of that, personally I think: attach too much, risk more than you ought, and participate in the world ("dirty your hands") by making the best of it, rather than anything more abstract.

Professors of stocism like to make a virute of dying quiety -- this i think absurd. If the plane is falling from the sky, i envy the people screaming -- they have the right levels of attachemnt to their own lives.

Of course, I also think that OP is being polemical and that means they're not interested in being charitable. I think their criticisms are interesting, but the original post linked here does a far better job at balancing a charitable read of stoicism with a critique of why it is appealing to the rich and powerful.

People with power often adopt stoic thinking as the nature of power comes with stresses that are difficult to manage. I’ve wielded power at a scale that was nothing like a president or ceo, but way beyond what the typical person experiences. It’s hard, and whatever you do, someone has a bad outcome in many cases.

Most people would characterize Marcus Aurelius or George Washington as wise rulers. They embraced stoicism. Yet Mussolini and Robespierre also identified as stoic-ish as well, and most people would objectively look at them with a harsher light.

So Aristotle then:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_virtues

For that reason, although in theory I think that stoicism could be a useful philosophy, in practice I see it as a cudgel for those who benefit from the status quo.

As is addressed in the article.

These are diaries he wanted burned -- they were just exercises in writing for himself to clam himself down. He is writing to himself.

Go back and read a few sections and ask: "what happened to Marcus on this evening for him to go to his study and rebuke himself with this lesson?"

There's clearly a lot of bitterness there, and depression.

Opening a translation at random, to a random book: https://vreeman.com/meditations/#book10

> # 10.1 To my soul:

Are you ever going to achieve goodness? Ever going to be simple, whole, and naked—as plain to see as the body that contains you? Know what an affectionate and loving disposition would feel like? Ever be fulfilled, ever stop desiring—lusting and longing for people and things to enjoy? Or for more time to enjoy them? Or for some other place or country—“a more temperate clime”? Or for people easier to get along with? And instead be satisfied with what you have, and accept the present—all of it. And convince yourself that everything is the gift of the gods, ....

I mean this is a deeply mournful person with an excess of self-admonishment.

Why is he, somewhere alone in his room, writing these thoughts to himself? Why does he go on and on to admonish his failure to "Know what an affectionate and loving disposition would feel like" ?

Whatever the cause that evening, he's in great pain with it. He sees his life as a failure. Its harder to tell the inciding incident in this particular passage -- but for some, its clearly been some betrayl or insult or similar which makes him rail against people.

----

Consider, just a little ways down:

> # 10.13 When you wake up, ask yourself:

Does it make any difference to you if other people blame you for doing what’s right?

It makes no difference.

Have you forgotten what the people who are so vociferous in praise or blame of others are like as they sleep and eat?

Forgotten their behavior, their fears, their desires, their thefts and depredations—not physical ones, but those committed by what should be highest in them? What creates, when it chooses, loyalty, humility, truth, order, well-being.

------

Reading this I say to myself, "OK. Marcus, dear me. What cross are you matrying yourself on this time? What gossip has upset you this evening. Why now, each morning, do you have to remember that you're above the gossiping crowds "

All this suppression of the particular by talking about the abstract is all very telling. No one rants like this in their diaries without a provocation, he's too self-righteously high-minded to do anything other than rail against all humanity. A normal person would air their particular grievances -- and be much better for it.

I'm rewatching House MD. at the moment, it's very housian in its own way. Its not that he has been lied to, its that Lying is the Metaphyiscal Necessity of Life, and o woe is me, what suffering! Etc. All just a cheap misdirection for being hurt by someone.

Seems to be a practitioner of stoism, to shift ones inner outlook, non obvious takes are strong.

I think they've mixed up Stoicism with some other philosophy entirely. They think Stoicism means feeling nothing, doing nothing. Almost like the Hindu concept of sanyasi.

The problems and issues that men face are largely ignored or downplayed compared with women and there's little offered to men in dealing with it. The traditional outlets like men-only clubs and spaces have been torn down in the name of equality. In that environment, literally anything at all that attempts to address the problems men face will become popular among men.

My reptile brain can appreciate that, at least!

It's phenomenal to read about these revered historical figures! They turn out be privileged thugs. We should be extremely reluctant to extol their virtues.

This is the overriding principle I've come away with as well, and it has felt to me like one of the most simple and wise things I've heard.

In their original, unedited comment, they didn't even get Marcus Aurelius's name right, attributing the Meditations to Mark Antony.

Their take is such a wild and inaccurate mischaracterization of Stoicism that it's frankly not worth engaging with -- written absentmindedly while "listening to corporate policy announcements." Take it with a grain of salt.

That having been said, Marcus Aurelius was definitely one of the better emperors. Leagues ahead of guys like Nero or Caligula or Elagabalus or uh, Commodus (who was his son). It’s been said that the reign of Marcus Aurelius was the high point of the Roman Empire as a whole, but that’s a double edged statement about the emperor himself.

> He was a member of the Nerva–Antonine dynasty, the last of the rulers later known as the Five Good Emperors and the last emperor of the Pax Romana, an age of relative peace, calm, and stability for the Roman Empire lasting from 27 BC to 180 AD. He served as Roman consul in 140, 145, and 161.

> ...

> The historian Herodian wrote:

> Alone of the emperors, he gave proof of his learning not by mere words or knowledge of philosophical doctrines but by his blameless character and temperate way of life.

> ...

> The number and severity of persecutions of Christians in various locations of the empire seemingly increased during the reign of Marcus Aurelius. The extent to which the emperor himself directed, encouraged, or was aware of these persecutions is unclear and much debated by historians. The early Christian apologist Justin Martyr includes within his First Apology (written between 140 and 150) a letter from Marcus Aurelius to the Roman Senate (prior to his reign) describing a battlefield incident in which Marcus believed Christian prayer had saved his army from thirst when "water poured from heaven" after which, "immediately we recognized the presence of God." Marcus goes on to request the Senate desist from earlier courses of Christian persecution by Rome.

----

He was considered to be a good emperor.

But be aware that most writings about him are roman, and hence state propaganda which glorify his actions. In order to see more clearly what his actions were, just imagine being their victim. He perpetrated a genocide against Germanic tribes in retribution.

It's very hard to be a morally good roman emperor -- you can be seen as good by either the plebs or the elite of roman society, but not by nearly anyone else, and almost never by both even in rome.

I don't think its any accident the elite of concequering empires adopted this mentality. Though, no doubt, there were originally honest/moral/good stoic-philosophers they did create a kind of "retreat from the world dissociation" which isn't in my view, itself good. It's therapeutic in some situations, typically in cases of grief/loss/extreme-attachement --- but outside of these cases, you want to associate and attach.

Perhaps there's some case for a little stocisim in the face of social media today, or in the kinds of "adversarial environments" which exploit your attachment -- such as leading an empire (cf. Machiavelli: leaders have to be rutheless). There's possibly an argument that twitter turns everyone into a viperous courterier looking to attack each other's reputation and attachemnt-bait.

There isn't any indication as to whether James, Peter, John (the Three Pillars in Jerusalem) disagreed with Paul over his Christology or eschatological expectations (Jesus was probably an apocalyptic prophet like John the Baptist). Paul says Jesus first appeared to them, so they likely began believing God had raised him to heaven before Paul. Paul says he persecuted their movement at first, likely because he found it offensive. A risen crucified messiah would be offensive to a Pharisee.

Paul further says they had their gospel (literally good news) for Jews and he was sent to Gentiles, but again there isn't any indication over whether there were substantive disagreements beyond whether Gentiles needed to become Jewish. That and some people clearly questioned Paul's claim to apostleship, particularly in relationship to other apostles, especially in Jerusalem.

What developed after the destruction of the Temple with the proto-orthodox, Ebionites and Gnostic Christianity is not necessarily a reflection of Paul's conflict. Those were further developments.

In 380 it was Theodosius who made Christianity the state religion with the Edict of Thessalonica.

Negative assessment of Paul's influence on the development of Christianity predates Jefferson by many centuries, e.g. in the writings of ߵAbd al-Jabbār and Ibn Ḥazm. Muhammad himself believed that Christians had diverged from the truth about Jesus' identity and teachings, though he didn't criticize Paul specifically as far as I'm aware.

It's something of a theme, really, that shows up, seemingly independently, in the writings of those who "want" the core teachings of Jesus but are determined to identify an irreformable corruption that invalidates orthodox Christianity as such. Some identify that corruption with the influence of Paul, others find their smoking guns within the pre Nicene church, or post Nicene, and so on.

for opponents of stoicism “cuck philosophy” might be the goat of slogans

or an insane testament to the monk-like philosophy

The first part of that sentence is opposite to what the author here suggests.

To look at that last one, in the solar economy up until 1920 or so, the peak of beauty socially [1] was the debutante from a rich or noble family. As soon as there were cities there were entertainers and courtesans, but in the mass media age the likes of Marie Antoinette just can't compete with professionals.

Standards of athleticism also involve an element of conformity. "Extreme sports" are frequently pioneered by older athletes who have no chance of making the NFL draft but get taken over by the young once a path is visible. (Early winners of the World Series of Poker were outright old, but it became a young man's game when it became mainstream in the 2000s.)

Some societies have a use for people with high intelligence, others don't.

[1] I'm sure there were beautiful peasants to my eye in Heian Japan but the text that survive from that period describe a very specific ideal including perfectly straight and rather coarse black hair that's about as rigid as the look of the kind of woman who, creepily, Instagram wants me to follow today.

Since you are a body, in an environment, with a psychology -- your actions have an effect upon the world.

The invitation to dissociate and mute your social emotions is an invitation to keep everything as-it-is.

even if acquiring wealth is random, retaining wealth means choosing not to see and positively act on the state of the world

These things are outside your control, but entirely in control of a society.

Sorry if this sounds dismissive, it’s not meant to be. But I think it is the cold hard reason for a lot of feeling/stress among people who have otherwise nice lives with no explicit moral failings…

I hate articles "I did X and so can you". No, people often can't do what you did.

Guilt is often unhealthy and leads people to do destructive things that is more damaging.

But I can totally understand why people would feel guilt

I can understand the idea of feeling guilty about wasted potential (wealth, time, strength, beauty, intelligence). That which could be used to help those who need help, not exactly novel: “If you have two coats, give one away”

You should feel guilty because you can do something about other people's suffering, instead of being a greedy hoarder who has far more than he could possibly use in multiple lifetimes while other people starve and live miserable lives due to the system you benefit from.

I think Peter Singer makes the argument very well [1] but many others in the history of philosophy have done just as good a job. Even Rawls is an option.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVl5kMXz1vA&pp=ygUMcGV0ZXIgc...

You didn't earn them, but so what? Why is everyone obsessed with everything having to be earned? A gift also belongs to me, even if I didn't do anything to earn it, and no one is entitled to take it from me as such any more than they can take anything I have earned.

Now, w.r.t. material prosperity, of course there is no reason to feel guilt. If you acquired your wealth morally, then all is well. This is distinct from the general obligation of those in our society with means that exceed their own needs to aid those in a state of poverty. Note that I said poverty, not having less. Having less is not an injustice.

The framing of inequality as injustice in recently years is rather a symptom of envy or confusion rather than an impulse coming from an intelligent sensitivity to injustice.

She said: "I personally love stoicism. It’s gorgeous. It’s brilliant." Maybe that doesn't make her a stoic, but it still struck me as ironic that she seemed wary of rich people using it, that's all.

But now tech is the establishment and has all the power so that story isn't useful anymore. Instead they are justified in their control because they were so successful and are so wealthy. To fight against them is to fight against "progress" and "the market has decided".

Put another way: "The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny"

It's the great irony of our tech elite. They all believe they are independent thinkers who are changing the world but like any clique they follow what the group says and found another Sass App or become another VC investor.

Even if it would make no difference in the world, it still makes me happier.

But it does make a (BIG) difference, thoughts direct energy and energy manifests reality.

Doesn't that seems bit pointless?

Ah, don’t be too hard on yourself.

I don't think anyone with even a basic understanding of history can say that communism has been bad for the working class. Really? Communism transformed the Soviet Union into a global superpower in just a few decades. It turned a rural, agrarian society into one that launched the first satellite into space. It provided free housing and education to people who, for generations, couldn't even read. It achieved groundbreaking advancements in nuclear energy and developed the atomic bomb.

China, under the leadership of the Communist Party, is now #1 in science, technology, and industry. Its success as a superpower is thanks to communism. And before you argue, "but China isn't communist!!!11," please shut up. Yes, it is. If it were just another average capitalist country, it wouldn't have achieved even 1% of what it has. It would have been exploited by imperialist powers, just like Latin America and Africa. China's rise to #1 is due to the Communist Party's strict control over capital.

The Soviet bloc did decline and collapsed in the late 20th century. You likely lived through that time, as its collapse was caused by competition from the West, bureaucratization of the revolution, and a lack of innovation. However, saying "the revolution stagnated" because "communism was a failure" is entirely false. It wasn't a failure; the most significant story of the 20th century is the resounding success of communism wherever it was applied.

Even if you lived in a capitalist country, as a worker, you have communism to thank. The fear of communism forced the West to implement a welfare state and make reforms that benefited workers they otherwise wouldn't have. They poured billions into workers' hands to prevent them from embracing communism. Communism led to the creation of the Welfare State and the Marshall Plan. Competition with the Soviet Union is why South Korea and Japan received hundreds of billions from the USA. The fear of a revolution was very real, prompting many third-world countries to adopt nationalist and welfare-state policies that improved millions' lives.

Your argument simply doesn't hold up. It is demonstrably false.

And for the capitalists upper class what it does is to validate the atroicities they commit: "the universe is an eternal good entity, everything happens for a reason. Sixty thousand children killed in Gaza? Its just the universe changing colors, changing quantity, some people turned from alive to unalive, but in the grand scheme of things it doesnt matter. You are just doing your role".

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201&versio...

I usually give people John above. I tell them to ask God to speak to their hearts about the truth. Then, read it all the way through. Ask as you read: "Who is Jesus? What is our problem? How does He say we will be saved? How do we live?"