How to Be a Stoic • Hacker News Board

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#121

Post by wry_discontent » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 4:13 PM UTC

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…

He's not using the naturalist fallacy at all. He says that being a Stoic is not acting in accordance with nature at all, that nature is completely indifferent. And then he says that their philosophy attempts to tyrannize over nature and that isn't going to work.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#122

Post by wry_discontent » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 4:14 PM UTC

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.

He is saying that "living in accordance with nature" is a nonsense concept. Nature is boundless indifference and by your very existence, by your very desires, you are not and can not live in accordance with it. And beyond that, the Stoics are taking their view of the world and are projecting it onto Nature.

One of the things Nietzsche hated most were life denying philosophies. If your philosophy of life made you weaker, then it was evil. He considered Stoicism a philosophy that made you weaker by accepting what was. For example:

From the article: “Starting with things of little value—a bit of spilled oil, a little stolen wine—repeat to yourself: ‘For such a small price, I buy tranquillity.’ ” Nietzsche would ask if you are buying yourself tranquility because you want to? Or because you are too cowardly to say something? Based on how I read the article, the latter is almost definitely true.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#123

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 4:16 PM UTC

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.

[deleted]

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#124

Post by TelmoMenezes » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 4:18 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #107

coldtea wrote: post #101

Earlier 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.

> Death is absolutely the most natural thing in the world.

How is it more natural than anything else? What does that mean?

> While it's viewed positively in some situations no culture views it as a universally good thing.

Without death there would be no biological evolution, so human beings would not exist. It is very easy to argue that death is universally a good thing (from a human perspective).

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#125

Post by jwdunne » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 4:18 PM UTC

FabHK wrote: post #109

jwdunne wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (Con…

With regards to one, just because it was not original does not discount its value. That only supports my point that it was an attempt to present a way to live - a failed attempt given hindsight. I never said it was original nor entirely good. That's why we can both recognise the good parts as generally good advice.

2. I'm not preaching. I was brought up Catholic and learned enough to reject it. Catholicism and the actions of that church and other splinters are fundamentally at odds with what Jesus actually preached - love your neighbour. Somehow, it was ok to burn your neighbour alive if they did not believe Jesus was God, which the rule did not mention. I am not a Catholic today - there is too much hypocrisy. My assertion was that these, regardless of what we know now, were misguided hypotheses that had mixtures of valuable advice along with ideas that we now know are wrong. The structure built on top of that is perhaps a hypothesis taken too seriously. My thinking is that what originally was the equivalent of Aristotle to some Newton was misunderstood and taken to the extreme. I share your sentiments exactly.

> Yes, at the time. But not today

This was exactly my point. Your English is very good, by the way. If I didn't know better, I'd mistake your German directness as rude and blunt.

I would agree. Perhaps not empiric but more practical which lends itself better to empirical study.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#126

Post by Havoc » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 4:19 PM UTC

thisiscurio wrote: post #32

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…

This is exactly what I believe the universe is. When people say the universe is uncaring, they equate that as bad; I reckon this is because we want control over our lives. True our agency over our lives is increasing as we progress as a society but it's unlikely that we will reach a point that our cumulative progress would give us control over everything. The universe doesn't care who you are the same way a benevolen…

>This is exactly what I believe the universe is.

Yup - I've found the lion/zebra thing to be very useful in explaining something that isn't easy for most people to see. Especially those that grew up with religious notions of good vs evil.

>the universe cares about you in an impersonal kind of way

Personally I'd be very wary of using the word caring at all. It's just atoms & stuff flying about the place to me. I choose to overlay the whole "I want to be a good person etc" on top of that though as a personal choice despite considering it a very artificial & fake construct. Bit of a cognitive dissonance I suppose but much like people choose to believe in god I choose this.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#127

Post by kerkeslager » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 4:22 PM UTC

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…

> 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".

Why bother depriving the stoics of their claim to naturalness if the claim to naturalness has no value?

And why should we care about depriving the stoics of their claim to naturalness when no one is claiming naturalness in the contemporary conversation?

> 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?"

Granted that "living according to nature" means whatever Nietzche wants it to mean, Nietzche can argue anything, but even a cursory reading of the stoics shows that the stoics weren't speaking tautologically when they said "life according to nature". "Life according to nature" in stoic terms is more like "life that acknowledges the limitations placed on one by reality". Stated in English as quoted, Nietzche's argument sounds like Nietzche didn't even read the stoics. However, I suspect that Nietzche's intent may have been lost in translation, as such semantic arguments translate poorly.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#128

Post by Retric » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 4:23 PM UTC

TelmoMenezes wrote: post #124

Retric wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Death is absolutely the most natural thing in the world. How is it more natural than anything else? What does that mean? > While it's viewed positively in some situations no culture views it as a universally good thing. Without death there would be no biological evolution, so human beings would not exist. It is very easy to argue that death is universally a good thing (from a human perspective).

It's hard to point to something everything else does. Things die before taking their first breath. Even inanimate objects like protons die.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#129

Post by CuriouslyC » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 4:25 PM UTC

FabHK wrote: post #83

kapv89 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Human consciousness isn't human, in fact it isn't even brain consciousness (since we aren't conscious of everything that goes on in our brains) but rather the property of some (comparatively) small number of neurons. Ultimately, this is just a system of coupled biochemical reactions. There isn't really a meaningful difference between a single cell and a small network of neurons in terms of specific biochemical reactions. The only difference is the magnitude of the system's complexity.

This leaves you with two options:

1.) You can posit some blessed configuration of a biochemical system that magically produces awareness, a property separate from matter. Note that since our neurons are arranged quite differently, this blessed configuration must be quite general.

2.) You can assume that awareness is inherent in matter, and any difference between a group of neurons with coupled biochemistry and a cell with coupled biochemistry exists on a continuum. Thus, any difference in awareness between a neural network and a cell is likely to be one of resolution.

If you think for a minute hopefully you'll realize that option #2 actually involves fewer assumptions.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#130

Post by Havoc » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 4:25 PM UTC

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.

>I'd suggest what keeps man from eating man

Not really the point I was making with the lion/zebra thing, but regardless:

>is a general belief in a authority higher than man.

For some, certainly. I'd venture that it's only one route available. I certainly don't believe in any higher authority whatsoever nor do I even believe that good & evil are particularly sound concepts (Moral Relativism), yet most people that know me will probably judge me a good person.