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

91–100 of 241 posts

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#91

Post by FabHK »

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?

I'd think the Stoics make for a much more edifying read than Nietzsche, though :-)

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#92

Post by lioeters »

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…

That quote was a delightful and relevant response, which even extended the criticism to all philosophy.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#93

Post by kerkeslager »

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…

Nietzche fails to provide any insight here for two reasons:

1. It's tempting to read this as Nietzche disproving the naturalist fallacy, but if you read this carefully, that's not what Nietzche says. On the contrary, Nietzche is using the naturalist fallacy to claim stoics are wrong because stoicism isn't natural. This completely misses the fact that "natural" does not imply "right" and "unnatural" does not imply "wrong".

2. Early stoics did use the naturalist fallacy to justify their positions, but I haven't come across this frequently when reading modern writers. Indeed the article you are responding to did not make this argument. As such, posting this here is basically a straw man argument: the passage you're quoting attacks a statement that was never stated.

This passage was fallacious when it was written, and it's irrelevant to the contemporary conversation on stoicism.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#94

Post by kelvin0 »

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…

Pardon the dullness of my mind, but I have quite a bit of difficulty 'getting the point' that Nietzche is making (against?) Stoics. Could someone explain it in simple terms? I always read such texts with a lot attention and am often not able to make perfect sense of it. Pardon my asking.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#95

Post by nnd »

I haven't dug deep into stoicism, but it appears to have a lot of overlap with buddhist philosophy. Is that a fair comparison?

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#96

Post by 0x445442 »

FabHK wrote: post #81
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.

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.

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

If you were able to control for all other conditions, possibly but not necessarily. Thus I don't think comparing homicide rates in the USA, Pakistan and Sweden proves or disproves anything.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#97

Post by 0x445442 »

gaoshan wrote: post #63
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.

You should ask, "what keeps lions from eating lions" if you want to go that route and then see what happens to your higher authority argument.

No argument was made. Just a statement of belief in a general belief.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#98

Post by jwdunne »

FabHK wrote: post #87
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.

I think the same is true for Christianity too. The golden rule is an excellent way to be an awesome human being. I think that's a better motive than a good afterlife.

I haven't studied other religions to much but I am dead sure there are timeless pieces of advice.

My opinion, and I stress opinion, is that much of the world's religions offered a way of life that attempted to reduce violence, illness and suffering.

Even kosher and halal, thinking about it, could have been a recognition that these foods can lead to death, especially in a time when germ theory and proper cooking and hygiene methods were not developed. Since disease was associated with evil, it makes sense that "God declares these unclean".

Plus, what would you speculate if you didn't have the knowledge of how the universe, the planets and life, including us, developed? In that case, a creator provides the fewest assumptions.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#99

Post by jshevek »

Havoc wrote: post #22
gfiorav wrote: post #4

Well, it turns out I've been a stoic all this time, I'm finding out. It blows me away how that part about taking every problem as a chance to learn and become a better "wrestler" fits right in with my natural conclusions. The rest of it describes me adequately also. I'm reading Epictetus now, thanks for sharing.

>turns out I've been a stoic all this time, I'm finding out. It seems to come naturally to some, especially those that tend to adopt a somewhat cold analytical view of the world

The word "cold" on that comment only emphasizes your biases.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#100

Post by 0x445442 »

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

Yeah, the sticky point I've always found in the man is just a higher evolved animal position is the arbitrariness of cooperation. That is to say, any expectation one human has of another seems arbitrary to me without a base set of rules set forth by a higher authority.

The writings of C.S. Lewis crystallized a lot of this in my mind.

Post reply on HN