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

101–110 of 241 posts

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#101

Post by coldtea »

kerkeslager wrote: post #93
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 "wr…

>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".

For Nietzche it does. And one could argue (well Nietzche sure did, elsewhere) that it's also universally true.

Besides even without that, his showing that what's natural could be seen in another different way is enough to deprive the stoics of their claim to naturalness. It is not naturalness the preach, he points, it's "how nature should be according to stoics".

But the even more important insight is this: "And granted that your imperative, "living according to Nature," means actually the same as "living according to life"--how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be?"

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#102

Post by sampl »

kelvin0 wrote: post #94
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.

Here's my take, for what it's worth. From the article:

> The sense of doom and delight that is programmed into the human body? It can be overridden by the mind. The eternal war between subconscious desires and the demands of civilization? It can be won.

Nietzsche is saying this is ridiculous because those things are natural, and we are part of nature.

> [You] 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... Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited? to be different?

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#103

Post by CuriouslyC »

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…

In my opinion this criticism is a bit of a straw man, but in fairness to Nietzsche, it is not a result of his misinterpretation but rather poor communication on the part of the stoics.

The state of mind that the stoics advocate is one of acceptance and non-attachment to outcomes. Stoicism and Buddhism are really quite similar in this regard.

This pattern repeats itself endlessly in philosophy. In fact, I would argue that variations in the definition of "is" are responsible for more philosophical writing than the actual questions posed.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#104

Post by charlieflowers »

0x445442 wrote: post #97
gaoshan wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not true. An argument was clearly made.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#105

Post by CuriouslyC »

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?

Beyond Good and Evil is probably his most important work, but Thus Spoke Zarathustra is more readable.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#106

Post by gommm »

hartator wrote: post #62

I can't recommend enough "A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy" by Irvine, William B. I am 2/3 into it, maybe one of the best philosophy book I've ever read.

I second that recommendation. I've read it twice following a recommendation here on HN and I think it's a great introduction and one of those books that has and will have a great influence on the way I live my life.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#107

Post by Retric »

coldtea wrote: post #101
kerkeslager wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "wr…

> 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". For Nietzche it does. And one could argue (well Niet…

Death is absolutely the most natural thing in the world. While it's viewed positively in some situations no culture views it as a universally good thing. Thus when people talk about natural as good they are simply they are using it as a fallacy to support their argument not some guiding life principle.

Also, saying everything must live according to nature is a tautology that disproves nothing.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#108

Post by 0x445442 »

olavk wrote: post #70
0x445442 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes and that line of reasoning works as long as you don't think to deeply about the logic of it. But you cant really escape the fundamental paradox of a God which is both almighty and benevolent. All monotheistic religions have to struggle with this. The Book of Job in the Bible for example posits that God is almighty but not at all fair. He basically causes Job to suffer on a whim. Not out of some kind of theologica…

Yeah, and if you have an eternal perspective whereby you believe your time on earth is a brief moment of exile from the almighty then acceptance of the conditions found in Job is made easier.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#109

Post by FabHK »

jwdunne wrote: post #98
FabHK wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Eve…

Thanks for the thoughtful and respectful comments, I hope my answer manages to stay in that spirit, too.

> I think the same is true for Christianity too

Disagree, concerning the Abrahamic religions, as what is good is rarely original, and what is original is rarely good:

1. What is good (golden rule, some of the 10 commandments) is not very original. The golden rule has appeared in ancient Greece (Thales), China (Confucius), etc. half a millennium before Christianity, and other places independently. By contrast, Stoa and Buddhism were, I'd venture, among the first to arrive at and codify certain substantial insights that constitute large parts of their teachings.

2. What is original is mostly fairly absurd, if looked at dispassionately. If you strip Christianity of the superstitions, its essence is basically gone.

Just as a small example: it is still current position of the Catholic Church that the eucharist is actual transformation in substance of wine and bread into actual blood and flesh of Christ. (There was a (possibly apocryphal) case in Germany of a vegetarian asking whether he could participate in the communion, and he was told that he could not as a vegetarian, because it IS flesh.) If you erroneously believe that it's purely symbolic, you'd be subject to the punishment of anathema (which is worse than excommunication), if the Church were consistent with its teachings.

> religions offered a way of life that attempted to reduce violence, illness and suffering.

Yes, at the time. But not today.

> 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.

Yes, at the time. But not today.

In that sense, Stoa and Buddhism have aged better than the Abrahamic religions, maybe because they were more empiric.

Post reply on HN