[Shameless plug] You can read Marcus Aurelius "Meditations" at http://directingmind.com
Whose translation is that?
How to Be a Stoic
51–60 of 241 posts
Re: How to Be a Stoic
#52One interesting thing I've noticed is that ancient Stoics have not rebuked the concept of god (or "the universe"), a higher power that determines all the things that are not in our control (as a Stoic you very much need to distinguish between things in and outside of your control). I have found it difficult to really, deeply, accept things as out of my control without resorting to some concept of god or "the universe…
You're essentially asking about the difference between active and passive existential nihilism. Or in non-philosophical terms, asking who is resigned to their existence and who actively searches to find meaning in it. Active nihilism is much more beneficial and relates to stoicism. It holds that you must find your meaning, which is really what everyone does anyway, whether through a super natural being or friends, fa…
Active nihilism is not about finding meaning in objects created by others or transcendent ideas of any kind, but creating (and projecting) your own. It is Nietzsche's concept of the Übermensch. If there is one word to characterize active nihilism, it is "Destruction". The tearing down of old symbols, morals and ideas imposed upon the individual by the collective. In some of Nietzsche's writings, Christianity plays the adversarial, collective role.
On the other hand and contrary to what you claim Viktor Frankl writes (I have not read his book), Stoicism (and Buddhism) are really forms of passive nihilism, Buddhism of course being the stronger of the two. If there is one word to characterize passive nihilism, it is "Acceptance".
Re: How to Be a Stoic
#53One interesting thing I've noticed is that ancient Stoics have not rebuked the concept of god (or "the universe"), a higher power that determines all the things that are not in our control (as a Stoic you very much need to distinguish between things in and outside of your control). I have found it difficult to really, deeply, accept things as out of my control without resorting to some concept of god or "the universe…
>Is there someone among you HNers who has retained a positive outlook by believing that the universe is a bleak, chaotic place with no intrinsic meaning to the things happening in it? Yep. Though I'd suggest you take a closer look at that sentence of yours. Specifically the "bleak, chaotic" part. That's already a very negative judgement and in contradiction with the neutral "no intrinsic meaning" part. >I have found…
I'd suggest what keeps man from eating man, on the scale that lions eat zebras, is a general belief in a authority higher than man.
Re: How to Be a Stoic
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read it as "instead of getting angry for losing a 20$ note, consider it the price you pay for tranquility". Which maybe works for yourself, but most of my significant others of the past would just start complaining that I lost a 20$ bill.
I prefer to consider the joy of finding money; when you lose it you've almost certainly given someone else that joy.
Better hope the finders don't apply the same logic, or they'll just feel your pain all over again.
Re: How to Be a Stoic
#55One interesting thing I've noticed is that ancient Stoics have not rebuked the concept of god (or "the universe"), a higher power that determines all the things that are not in our control (as a Stoic you very much need to distinguish between things in and outside of your control). I have found it difficult to really, deeply, accept things as out of my control without resorting to some concept of god or "the universe…
Bone cancer in children - if there exist an almighty sentient God, then he is erratic and malicious. The polytheistic concept of gods is actually more realistic (better explains reality) in that there are multiple gods with different agendas and morals acting. In polytheism the universe is not chaotic and meaningless - things to not happen at random, but because the gods willed it. But the gods does not always act fo…
My beliefs here, take with grain of salt...
If something bad happens to you it is not because God wants you to suffer but because God has given evil dominion over this place in order to facilitate free will and choice.
God wants to be reconciled with every person but also wants that reconciliation to be chosen and not coerced.
The suffering of innocents is just an extension of this idea.
Re: How to Be a Stoic
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read it as "instead of getting angry for losing a 20$ note, consider it the price you pay for tranquility". Which maybe works for yourself, but most of my significant others of the past would just start complaining that I lost a 20$ bill.
I prefer to consider the joy of finding money; when you lose it you've almost certainly given someone else that joy.
Just like when things get stolen from my car, they're inevitably things that the thief might have needed more than me.
Re: How to Be a Stoic
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bone cancer in children - if there exist an almighty sentient God, then he is erratic and malicious. The polytheistic concept of gods is actually more realistic (better explains reality) in that there are multiple gods with different agendas and morals acting. In polytheism the universe is not chaotic and meaningless - things to not happen at random, but because the gods willed it. But the gods does not always act fo…
Your first statement is a pretty classic and naive position. For me at 8 years or so I rendered the objection of "pain" in terms of volcanoes. The standard, and again naive, rejoinder in mainstream Christian theology is that God had a pattern for the World that didn't include such types of pain and destruction but that man chose not to follow God's plan (as allegorised in "The Fall" in Genesis). Thus we chose to go i…
So God inflicted leprocy on humanity because otherwise we wouldn't be able to feel genuine love? And not buying this makes you "naive"?
Re: How to Be a Stoic
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "bleak, chaotic place with no intrinsic meaning" conflates two things unfairly. Consider a beautiful sunrise on a tropical beach. It's part of the universe and not bleak and chaotic yet you don't have to believe it has a meaning enjoy it. As an atheist, the survival of us and our ancestors for ~4bn years suggests the universe is not so bleak in parts.
I dunno, I see the continued survival of our species as a cruel joke - certainly bleak - given the amount of harm we do to each other and everything around us.
Harm is again an unnecessarily negative judgement. We are the same matter and energy (nature) as the Earth, the Moon, the Sun. What we do when our matter and energy moves around is not any more purposeful or harmful than what the Sun does.
It's kind of like asking if the Universe was harmed by the big bang.
Re: How to Be a Stoic
#59[Shameless plug] You can read Marcus Aurelius "Meditations" at http://directingmind.com
Whose translation is that?
Re: How to Be a Stoic
#60One interesting thing I've noticed is that ancient Stoics have not rebuked the concept of god (or "the universe"), a higher power that determines all the things that are not in our control (as a Stoic you very much need to distinguish between things in and outside of your control). I have found it difficult to really, deeply, accept things as out of my control without resorting to some concept of god or "the universe…
Just to provide another perspective, no.
I can't reconcile the two and inevitably end up in an existential slump that leads to depression.