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

131–140 of 241 posts

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#131

Post by stinkytaco »

wry_discontent wrote: post #122
kelvin0 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 weak…

> One of the things Nietzsche hated most were life denying philosophies. If your philosophy of life made you weaker, then it was evil.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. I think that Nietzsche observed philosophies and decided some that thought they were life affirming were life denying, but I don't necessarily think built into that is hatred. Indeed, I think you can take out of Genealogy that he rather admired the slaves. Their life denying philosophy served their ends, after all.

I actually think Nietzsche probably has more in common with the Stoics than not. They both seek to overcome a world that might deny them. One through acceptance, one through self-overcoming.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#132

Post by Havoc »

jshevek wrote: post #99
Havoc wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

No bias - I consider myself one of them.

Wasn't really meant as a negative judgement - the cold is merely there to emphasise that I meant people that generally don't factor in emotions.

Didn't mean to offend anyone. I can see how it could be interpreted negatively though. :(

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#133

Post by Havoc »

firepoet wrote: post #80
Havoc wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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

You might have dropped the word "cold" and been a bit more inclusive.

Fair enough. It was meant to convey reasoning devoid of emotion...wasn't aimed at a negative judgement.

I consider myself one of those people so def didn't intend to offend.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#134

Post by forthefuture »

olavk wrote: post #85
forthefuture wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah sorry I can't edit it again now. I editted because the reason I used "evil / unreal" was because those are typically the traits given to a God to illustrate contradiction. And as religion is intrinsically overflowing with contradictions they aren't a particularly compelling way to argue against it.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#135

Post by Havoc »

nnd wrote: post #95

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

>a lot of overlap

Definitely. Though from what I've seen stoicism emphasises rationalising through problems more in my experience.

i.e. Here is a logical argument as to why you should not worry about this thing. Buddhist has some of that too, but the approach tends to be a bit more "spiritual" if that makes sense?

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#136

Post by trgn »

dominotw wrote: post #111
s_kilk wrote: post #23

[Shameless plug] You can read Marcus Aurelius "Meditations" at http://directingmind.com

Can you say couple of lines why someone should read this ?

I'll take a stab.

It is a very accessible work, still today. The writing is clear and simple.

It's always been a popular work across the centuries, but the form seems to work well for contemporary audiences. You can engage with at different levels, it doesn't require a deep commitment. You can read a few passages before bed time, leave it for years and pick it up again, leaf through it and skip back&forth. As you grow older, the depth of the work reveals itself.

Specifically, given the easy to digest form, Meditations is somewhat of a board room coffee table book, like Machiavelli or Sun Tzu. There is a lot in there about what it takes to be a good leader.

It is a primary work. As a reader, you will take a trip back in time, when people were, for lack of better word, different. The deep religiosity on display can come across as somewhat alien, especially since it is one that focuses on the importance of the observance of rites rather than on establishing a personal spiritual connection. It is very un-american, un-christian, and that journey is valuable in itself.

The breadth is wide. Stoicism is easily dismissed as being somewhat of a dour, pessimistic philosophy. There is undoubtedly a melancholy undercurrent in Meditations, but it is also full with love, joy, kindness, happiness. The opening sets the tone. A thoughtful thank you note to all the people who Marcus feels affectionate to. Near the end, after being reminded a great deal about your mortality, those bright colors will have lost their luster somewhat, but Meditationes leaves you with more confidence in humanity and love towards your fellow man than with less.

Marcus Aurelius was by all accounts an admirable man and an important historical figure. There is somewhat of a voyeuristic kick you get by reading something he never intended to publish. Especially when writing about his wife, his insecurities, his unpleasant views on sex, all are more personal passages than philosophical. It's been 2000 years, I'm sure we're forgiven.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#137

Post by CuriouslyC »

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"?

The idea that we are "privileged" is what breaks this. Assume that we are not special matter, and all matter shares the property of free will. Then the leprousy is just matter (in this case, a bacterium) exerting its free will for in its own interests, ignorant of the ramifications that it has on other matter (us). Given that this happens all the time with people, I don't think it is far fetched.

Of course, I don't think the universe exists to love god, so much as the universe is "god" playing with itself for entertainment.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#138

Post by CuriouslyC »

wry_discontent wrote: post #115
CuriouslyC wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree that his philosophy isn't super clear from Thus Spoke Zarathustra, but the parable-esque story style is what makes it easy to read. I suppose for clarity we should separate reading and understanding.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#139

Post by krylon »

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…

> The golden rule is an excellent way to be an awesome human being.

The golden rule is not a specialty of Christianity. Some guy - I forgot the name - studied the ethical foundations of world's major religions and found variations of it across many different cultures and religions.

But that kind of underlines your point.

[Edit: Typo]

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#140

Post by lngnmn »

Not sure if a hipster's magazine could be an authoritative source.

The first paragraph told me that I should stop reading and what kind of Stoicism I would find below.

Post reply on HN