[Shameless plug] You can read Marcus Aurelius "Meditations" at http://directingmind.com
Can you say couple of lines why someone should read this ?
How to Be a Stoic
111–120 of 241 posts
Re: How to Be a Stoic
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
>While it's viewed positively in some situations no culture views it as a universally good thing.
Well, we're talking about the natural way of living -- and death is a corner case, as it's not about living, but about the end to life.
Still, even with that, and even with all the grievance about the death of those we know and ourselves, death is seen as an essential part of the cycle of life in almost all cultures (and most, if not all, religions).
But that's orthogonal, as we aren't talking about what cultures view as good or bad, but about what is inherently good or bad. And we haven't established that death is bad anyway. Just that it is sad and painful. But the alternative could be even worse (e.g. for the species at large, or for society, or for the planet's ecology, etc). Death for example is a primary factor in evolution -- we don't know of another way to get to intelligent life and eventually, us. Except, you know, God creating an all-perfect human pair...
Besides, you (in the US) think Baby Boomers are a problem? Imagine having Babylonian-era Baby Boomers in charge still. (Rather, new people wouldn't even been born. The generation beating death will say: ok, we're good as we are. Fuck future generations, and let's keep it to us).
Re: How to Be a Stoic
#113Saw a few remarks about the "bleakness" or "uncaring" of the "universe". That view of the universe is in error, people are part of the universe and they certainly care. To view the universe without humanity is to not view the universe. There is bleakness in the universe for sure, but there is also compassion and caring.
This is worth giving a second thought.
It's practically (literally?) instinctual to feel like the universe is happening to you rather than with you.
Re: How to Be a Stoic
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
No argument was made. Just a statement of belief in a general belief.
Not true. An argument was clearly made.
Fair enough, your using definition number 1 of the word argument here. I'm using definition number 2.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/argument
My statement was not meant to be an argument or statement of fact but rather a suggestion or hypothesis, which is why I used the word suggest.
Re: How to Be a Stoic
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Don't start with Thus Spoke Zarathustra. It's all parables told in an old testament style that's hard to comprehend without already knowing what Nietzsche is about. I read The Gay Science first, and I thought it was a good starting point. It covers his big ideas and has the famous "God is dead" aphorism in it.
Re: How to Be a Stoic
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
First, you grant that other conditions have influence too, and not only as much, but more influence, than religious beliefs.
So, comparing homicide rates across countries disproves that more religion is necessary or sufficient for an ethical life.
(Let me note in passing that fairly secular northern Europe also has much lower rates of abortions, STDs, teenage pregnancies, and other societal ills, than other, more religious societies.)
Second, if we look at long term trends, violence has come down over the millennia, as religiosity has decreased (see Pinker's Better Angels).
Third, I concede that under certain circumstances in primitive societies you might achieve a reduction in crime by introducing certain religious beliefs (whether they're falsehoods or not). However, we should not strive for that, but for enlightened societies where that is not necessary anymore.
Re: How to Be a Stoic
#117Saw a few remarks about the "bleakness" or "uncaring" of the "universe". That view of the universe is in error, people are part of the universe and they certainly care. To view the universe without humanity is to not view the universe. There is bleakness in the universe for sure, but there is also compassion and caring.
I see it as an antidote to the sort of mentally unhealthy information that society (such as TV, social media etc.) gives people. Stoicism makes people realise that they aren't the centre of the universe, that almost all people don't care what you are doing - even if sounds like they do, to take personal responsibility for your life, not to act like a victim etc. Basically be someone that people truly respect.
Re: How to Be a Stoic
#118Earlier 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…
Jesus (or whoever came up with the stuff attributed to him) was indeed a profoundly wise human being. His philosophy of love is probably one of the most important developments of ancient religion.
Re: How to Be a Stoic
#119You 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?
Pretty much what others have suggested, but I would weigh in and say The Genealogy of Morality is the work I find myself revisiting the most recently. That along with Hannah Arendt's Origins of Totalitarianism and Guy Debord's Society of the Spectacle form a fairly interesting exploration into modern society, in my opinion. Not one I always agree with, but certainly one that makes you think.
Also, is it ironic that a stoic is waiting until the rain stops to go out and find happiness?
Re: How to Be a Stoic
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'm really disturbed by that mindset. Surely, you are not saying that without belief in some sort of God, you personally would cease cooperation and rape and murder and steal?
I'm an atheist, but I certainly have no desire or intention or plan to cease cooperation. Just the opposite, I think it's extremely important, and it is also extremely important that we cherish and enforce and cultivate it.
As just a little example, for me some sort of communal health insurance covering everyone is a matter of course, as for most citizens of developed nations. (I'm aghast at the fact that many people oppose it in the USA, and I note in passing that it appears to be mostly religious people.)
Next, I have the same expectation of basically everyone I encounter (except some sociopaths, against one has to guard appropriately).
Finally, I think there are many good reasons for it, and the position that man is ("just") a higher evolved animal is not at all incompatible with it.