Hacker News Reader

Stoicism is a personal philosophy. It doesn't concern itself with the whole of human kind but with you. That much is clear in that stoicism advise you against the temptation for fame, power, money, vice.

It's a philosophy that embraces fatalism and keep you on the path of finding your nature and then keeping on that path, just being yourself, without regards for external influences.

The notion of duty is however very strong in stoicism: social duty is part of your nature. You have to accept your obligations and perform them the best you can, without search for external rewards.

All in all, stoicism is a search for personal tranquillity, inner peace. It's not even a philosophy of efficiency, at least I've never seen it described as such.

Stoicism doesn't rely on "tools" either. You can be a milkman and still adopt stoicism as your personal philosophy of life.

Duty is a very big part of stoicism: it acknowledges that we live in a social world and that our nature, our role, requires that we perform our duties to the best of our abilities. This is the only way to achieve some sort of peace, by removing the fact that you need something eternal to yourself to find satisfaction about what you do.

So, you can be a janitor, collect rubbish, be a developer, a manager, an office worker, a CEO, it doesn't matter. You'll only achieve peace if you find your own way to derive satisfaction in whatever fortune you find yourself in at a given instant. In short: accept what fate threw at you, don't sweat what you can't control, and learn to make the best of it.

I'd say it's a perfect philosophy for today.

> accept what fate threw at you, don't sweat what you can't control, and learn to make the best of it.

Yes, that's what drew me in at first too. But the details seem sketchy.

> It's not even a philosophy of efficiency

I believe that ultimately it is.

What is the point of giving up on deriving happiness from external sources, if not to make the path to happiness a shorter and easier one? What is the point of not worrying about things outside your control, if not to help focus your efforts on the things you can actually impact? What is the point of tranquility, if not to allow for more concious rational thought? How is that not efficiency?

> you can be a janitor, collect rubbish, be a developer, a manager, an office worker, a CEO, it doesn't matter

By being a "tool" I didn't mean someone engaging in menial jobs. One can have a prestigeous well-paid job, and still be bored to death, because his heart isn't in it, or because tasks are perceived as too repetitive or too petty. (I hope I'm not offending anyone by saying this, but just think of e.g. divorce lawyers if you need an example.) Yet at the same time that individual might be, because fate saw fit that way, the perfect person for that particular job in a given society.

How can one both accept the fate (or duty?) he was dealt (or that his younger self chose for him), and at the same time still stop wasting his life? How can one find meaning in a process, that over the years has evolved to become devoid of meaning, because ultimately that's what is necessary for it to achieve peak efficiency? E.g. Like lawyers and doctors detaching themselves from their clients and patients, because they'll burn out otherwise. (Again, no offense intended, this is just the first thing to come to mind.)

> Stoicism is a personal philosophy. It doesn't concern itself with the whole of human kind but with you.

That doesn't invalidate any of my original points. The market economy benefits the majority of it's participants. I.e., someone feeling like a tool, wouldn't just quit because of some overall concern for society, but simply because he's still wasting less time this way.

Another concern also is that if we advocate to some broader public to adopt some "new" philosohpy, I think it's a prerequisite that that philosphy be one that ensures the wellbeing of a society as a whole. Otherwise it might prove difficult to engender support.

(By "new" I mean currently unknown/unpopular amongst that broader public.)

> I believe that ultimately it is.

Then we'll have to disagree. Being more "efficient" may be a by-product of stoicism, but it's not a measure of it and it's not a stated goal. At any rate, stoicism is not a shortcut to happiness. It's a arduous one because it takes practice and conscious effort.

Stoicism isn't about removing external pleasures either, the philosophers warn us about the dangers of seeking pleasure where it could trap us. They never said you shouldn't enjoy what surrounds you, on the contrary, they urge you to take pleasure in the things that are accessible to you instead of lusting for things that you believe will bring you pleasure.

You can call that efficiency if you wish, but that's a strange way of putting it.

>Another concern also is that if we advocate to some broader public to adopt some "new" philosohpy, I think it's a prerequisite that that philosphy be one that ensures the wellbeing of a society as a whole. Otherwise it might prove difficult to engender support.

I think this is a delusion: billions of people believe in mainstream religions that have encouraged bigotry, hatred and wars. Countless have died in the process.

Stoicism doesn't promote intolerance. It promotes reason, compassion, an awareness of our personal place in the world and our responsibilities to it. In terms of well being for the world, I'll take that over most other forms of philosophies. You are perfectly free to wait until something better (for you) comes along.

>The real issue is that being consequent about stoicism seems to always result in contradiction given mankind's current state of knowledge. On one hand stoicism is concerned with not wasting time (on indulgences) and at the same time it ignores that a market economy (embedded in a democratic society) is the only way we know of, that can reliably force a larger population to strive for efficiency.

I don't think we "know" anything of the sort. That's just an ideology people who believe in market economy subscribe to. Efficiency, for one, is an empty term. Efficiency with regards to what and towards what? And why "force a larger population" to strive for it?

>And of course we're all just fallible selfish humans

Not sure about that either -- if it's meant in the extreme. I know millions who have devoted themselves to various external causes, even to the point of being improsoned and losing their jobs etc for it. From patriotic duty in an occupied land, to overthrowing a dictatorship, to working for civil rights and for equality, people following the communist ideals in the 20th century, etc. Even the nazi party followers were willing to sacrifice themselves (young soldiers etc), for some outer cause. Same for those who fought against them of course.

>Just imagine how much more of our time would be wasted if there weren't an army of "tools" out there, working 8 hours a day towards the "indulgence" of ensuring that there is allways enough fresh milk stocked in the supermarkets of our cities.

We have lived in societies were there wasn't always "enough fresh milk stocked in the supermarkets of our cities" and people managed just fine.

In fact common people had even more free time than now. Leaving your "9-5" job or your small shop you worked on every afternoon without any worry (and no boss to get you on the mobile), working only 5 days a week and with month long holidays annually, siesta and afternoon naps, people strolling and idling in cafes and city squares, etc, was very common, in 20th century Paris, Vienna, Rome, Barcelona, Athens, etc. In fact, up to the 80s-90s it was still almost like that. We might not have had Walmart 24/7 superstores or all kinds of BS foods and "indulgences" but it's not like they were missed much, if any.

> I don't think we "know" anything of the sort.

I think this is rather easy to check - just have a look at per capita GDP.

> Efficiency, for one, is an empty term.

How did you reach this conclusion?

> Efficiency with regards to what and towards what?

With regard to how much effort you need to spend in order to achieve some outcome.

> And why "force a larger population" to strive for it?

Because it means we all waste less time/effort (on inefficiencies).

> I know millions who have devoted themselves to various external causes

I wasn't talking about specific individuals, but humans in general. Virtually every society will have some bad apples amongst it, and even those that don't will at least have incompetent ones.

I don't mean this in any derogatory way - in the end it's just genetics, random mutations and all that stuff. It's not exactly a process we can reasonably influence or even just comprehend.

> We might not have had Walmart 24/7 superstores or all kinds of BS foods and "indulgences" but it's not like they were missed much, if any.

I'd like to see a credible source for this claim. I for one would certainly miss some of those things.

Well, whether you like or not, your main meta-goal seems to be "efficiency" from what you've written, so that seems to be your subconscious "ultimate goal" or "prime principle". This is why knowing about various philosophical currents is very important, because whether you are aware of it or not, you are making philosophical choices, and many of those were already made by people before you.

> your main meta-goal seems to be "efficiency"

No I didn't say that. I said stoicism seems concerned about efficiency.

> you are making philosophical choices, and many of those were already made by people before you

That's true. My criticism though isn't about philosophy as a whole - just about stoicism because it seems to be contradictory.