Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to Be a Stoic

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 241 posts

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#81

Post by FabHK »

0x445442 wrote: post #53
Havoc wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Wouldn't we then expect homicide rates in religious USA and Pakistan to be much lower than in secular Sweden?

I don't think your claim withstands any scrutiny.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#82

Post by FabHK »

Pamar wrote: post #69
0x445442 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Interestingly enough, this has been scientifically investigated - I posted about this yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13724476

Interesting article. Note that it only talks about improving cooperation "within" the circle, i.e. among "co-religionists", as the article puts it.

I think you'd find increased cooperation within many other types of groups. What we should aim for, of course, is to expand this circle of concern ever further, beyond religion.

So, just want to clarify that this might have been an benefit of religion in earlier days, but is by no means an argument for them today.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#83

Post by FabHK »

kapv89 wrote: post #8
manmal wrote: post #2

One 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…

I don't find it too hard to accept the concept of "the universe as a well meaning entity". The only premise you need to accept in order to come to this conclusion is to not view your consciousness as a unique snowflake. Imagine that a white blood cell in your body has a consciousness of its own, where it, in its own way does its job when needed, hangs out with its "co-workers", other white-blood-cells, and red-blood-…

That is pure speculation though, without any evidence whatsoever.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#84

Post by Kenji »

Nokinside wrote: post #71
Kenji wrote: post #46

Note that stoicism is NOT rejecting and ignoring your feelings. If you feel bad about something, that too is a fact that you have to accept and deal with in the best way possible. Stoicism is about keeping your head up in the face of adversity, and not about becoming a hardened robot capable of taking any punishment. I think a lot of people on HN might get this wrong.

This is the modern Buddhist and psychology influenced interpretation of stoicism and apatheia. Personally I don't see much evidence that this really was the case in the golden era of Stoicsm. Freedom from all passions was not the same as removal of emotion, but it was very close to it. > not about becoming a hardened robot capable of taking any punishment. This was exactly what Stoics of the old saw as ideal and this…

>This is the modern Buddhist and psychology influenced interpretation of stoicism and apatheia.

No, it is not. Read Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. The man certainly argued for a certain inner brilliance that does not come from emotionlessness. He'd argue for you to be the even-tempered guy but full of fortitude and pouring your entire being into what you are standing for and doing, but without getting consumed by it. Stoicism is not the rejection of emotion, it is the rejection of uncontrolled desire. That's a huge difference.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#85

Post by olavk »

forthefuture wrote: post #66
olavk wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So God inflicted leprocy on humanity because otherwise we wouldn't be able to feel genuine love? And not buying this makes you "naive"?

Thinking that framing God as a contradiction will convince people not to believe in it is naive. People have been saying the same things for 2,000 years. The only development is that we can say it's been longer now.

Just as there is lots of suffering and injustice in the world, there is also copious beauty and happiness and love. So framing God as "evil" is just as problematic as painting him as "good". Both positions forces you to ignore or rationalize away large parts of reality.

Edit: Oh, you edited your comment to say something different. I guess this comment doesn't make a lot of sense as an answer now.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#86

Post by simonsarris »

1_player wrote: post #75
osti wrote: post #48

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 endeavorin…

Thanks for this, osti. As a stoicism fanboy I partly agree, and if it wasn't pouring outside I'd run to my local bookshop to get something from this Nietzsche fella. Any suggestion?

Not osti, but studied phil.

On the Genealogy of Morality is a decent read, I can't think of anything better for a first Nietzsche read. If you've ever heard "slave morality", its from here.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#87

Post by FabHK »

jwdunne wrote: post #67

What is perhaps most interesting about stoicism is how it influenced cognitive therapy and CBT in a big way. These forms of therapy, along with derivatives that integrate practical ideas from Buddhism such as DBT and radical acceptance therapy, have been seen to perform as well as medication and in some cases providing longer term improvements. I think both the stoics and Buddhism were definitely on to something.

Agreed, and in both cases, when you strip away the obsolete superstitions that accompany it (just by virtue of the world view at the time they emerged), then there is still a lot of original wisdom and substance left.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#88

Post by osti »

1_player wrote: post #75
osti wrote: post #48

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 endeavorin…

Thanks for this, osti. As a stoicism fanboy I partly agree, and if it wasn't pouring outside I'd run to my local bookshop to get something from this Nietzsche fella. Any suggestion?

To be honest I haven't read too many of his books yet, I do plan to take a university course on him this fall though. This passage just resonated with me too much that I have to post it anytime a discussion about Stoicism comes up. There are many Nietzsche classics that you could read, for example I own this copy myself which contains several of his books.

https://www.amazon.com/Writings-Nietzsche-Modern-Library-Cla...

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#89

Post by pbhjpbhj »

olavk wrote: post #57
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

I perhaps haven't expressed the position well however, "naive" isn't a slur, read "simplistic" if it helps, it's philosophy on the level of someone who has not demonstrated cognisance of the basic sources and hasn't addressed the obvious counter-arguments.

The mainstream Christian theology is that leprosy, and such diseases came in to the world after, and as a consequence of, The Fall. That if we'd chosen God's way we wouldn't have such things.

>So God inflicted leprocy on humanity //

God created a Universe with free will for man rather than creating a fancy automaton. Mankind chose not to follow God's precepts, the consequences being that disease, pain and suffering entered the world.

It's like if I serve you a hot drink. You can choose to cause pain and suffering with it - throw it at someone, say - or you can follow my instructions to sip it slowly, let it cool and enjoy it, share it. I can't serve you a hot drink without the possibility that you will abuse it, unless I make you into a "hot drink robot" with no free will.

You could couch that as God inflicting the possibility of suffering in order to allow the possibility of beauty, love, passion, humanity.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#90

Post by FabHK »

kgwgk wrote: post #12
karyon wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, that quote was the one sentence I didn't understand. Who's spilling the wine? And why does that buy tranquility? If you could help me that would be great :)

Don't cry over spilled milk (or oil). If someone steals your wine, get over it and continue with your life.

The one argument against is of course justice, that is, punishing cheaters in prisoner dilemmas, special and general prevention, etc.

However, the Stoic would advise to do the punishment (where appropriate and possible) without anger, but rather as one would punish a child that has transgressed - for the benefits arising from it.

Post reply on HN