Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stoicism's appeal to the rich and powerful (2019)

exurbe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 338 posts

Re: Stoicism's appeal to the rich and powerful (2019)

#151

Post by skwee357 »

codexb wrote: post #75
skwee357 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guess why Aurelius is considered as the face of stoicism is due to the fact he was an emperor/powerful man. I doubt that the twisted way in which stoicism is viewed today would benefit from selling it as a philosophy of Zeno, who was a foreigner. What I mean by that is that stoicism in its modern iteration seems a brosphere/manosphere thing that will help you to become rich/powerful/successful/buy a lambo, while i…

I think it's just one of the few therapeutic skills that are generally offered to men and that genuinely considers the problems that men face. The problems and issues that men face are largely ignored or downplayed compared with women and there's little offered to men in dealing with it. The traditional outlets like men-only clubs and spaces have been torn down in the name of equality. In that environment, literally…

Stoicism has nothing to do with men. It's not a male-exclusive philosophy. It's just a way to cope with life and the struggles in life. Stoicism is just being weaponized, often by misinterpretation, by "male-clubs".

It kind of became like a cult. "You need to be a Stoic in order to be successful". It's the same story all over, and a similar thing happens with every -ism, like minimalism where it transformed from being a philosophy of being happy with the things you have, into a philosophy where you need to identify yourself as minimalist by buying a bunch of crap that is labeled as "minimalist [whatever]".

Re: Stoicism's appeal to the rich and powerful (2019)

#152

Post by TheCoelacanth »

morning-coffee wrote: post #103

Is it a bit ironic that the author, a stoic herself, seems bothered by rich people using stoicism to advance themselves? edit: corrected pronoun

I don't think she is a stoic or particularly bothered by rich people using it. She is a historian and this is a topic that overlaps with her area of study.

Re: Stoicism's appeal to the rich and powerful (2019)

#153

Post by michaelsbradley »

EGreg wrote: post #24
mjburgess wrote: post #4

It's no accident that a roman emperor (tyrant, mass murderer, and courtier) is the premier famous stoic. Nor is it an accident that the next most famous case is that of British empire public schooling, british "stiff upper lip" stocisim. (EDIT: Marcus Aurelius) himself was no stoic philosopher, he merely wrote diaries to himself in his late days -- diaries he wanted burned, not published. And these were rehresals of…

Let's just be clear. It's not just that a roman emperor is the premier famous stoic. It's also that the Romans were instrumental in setting up Christianity and Judaism as exportable religions, after they completely destroyed Jerusalem in the Judaic wars. https://www.mayimachronim.com/the-caesar-who-saved-judaism/ Marcus Aurelius was very close with Judah ha Nasi (the Prince) and the Gamaliel family. Subsequent Roman…

Constantine gave Christians reprieve from persecution in 313 with the Edict of Milan.

In 380 it was Theodosius who made Christianity the state religion with the Edict of Thessalonica.

Negative assessment of Paul's influence on the development of Christianity predates Jefferson by many centuries, e.g. in the writings of ߵAbd al-Jabbār and Ibn Ḥazm. Muhammad himself believed that Christians had diverged from the truth about Jesus' identity and teachings, though he didn't criticize Paul specifically as far as I'm aware.

It's something of a theme, really, that shows up, seemingly independently, in the writings of those who "want" the core teachings of Jesus but are determined to identify an irreformable corruption that invalidates orthodox Christianity as such. Some identify that corruption with the influence of Paul, others find their smoking guns within the pre Nicene church, or post Nicene, and so on.

Re: Stoicism's appeal to the rich and powerful (2019)

#154

Post by s1artibartfast »

mjburgess wrote: post #107
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd say in the majority of cases, for most adult people with some life experience, shouting when you want to shout is probably a healthy thing. Sure, and that is totally fine. But Stoic philosophy disagrees with that. Just as with many other fundamental questions about how to live life, there are different answers/points of view. You don't agree with the Stoic one, and you even offer some reasons why you think it m…

I agree. But you'll note one of my professed virtues is conflict, so I'm "participating in the world" by expressing a social emotion (contempt) towards a value system I disagree with in order to change the social environment. This makes me a political animal. This is why I express my view in this way. If I wanted to be a stoic, or nearly equivalently a contemporary academic, I'd present some anemic "balanced view" in…

It took me a while to to figure out why I find your position so disgusting. I think a lot of people perceive this contempt as intentional distortion, dishonest, socially hostile.

I dont think we need more stoking of conflict and contempt, but need more good faith and balanced information sharing. I don't think your have correctly modeled the effects of your approach.

Re: Stoicism's appeal to the rich and powerful (2019)

#155

Post by throw4847285 »

oramit wrote: post #72

It's been interesting to watch and experience Techbros jump on different philosophical/religious trends over the years. Post 9/11 through the Great Financial Crisis New Atheism was all the rage. Once the tech boom was in full swing Stoicism became the dominant ideology. Now, post Covid I see a hard pivot towards Christianity, but importantly, "traditional" forms of it. Protestant sects are being ignored and Catholici…

I was recently listening to a podcast about Silicon Valley thought which theorized that at its root it is a justificatory mechanism and not a coherent worldview. Whatever the current problems facing Silicon Valley, its leadership will find some new theoretical underpinning that happens to justify whatever is in their naked self-interest. It's "move fast break things" but with philosophy. Their example was Marc Andreessen who once had coherent ideas that could be agreed with or disagreed with, but saw the writing on the wall and has aligned his "thinking" with the political movement he thinks will most protect his interests.

Re: Stoicism's appeal to the rich and powerful (2019)

#156

Post by betenoire »

tekla wrote: post #134
betenoire wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

both "screwed up" and "perfect" are judgements calls/perspectives, and panicking isn't going to change things (panic doesn't necessarily make something worse either)

Panic always makes things worse

you can't think of an example where it doesn't? I can. I'm not saying there is any virtue to it, but panic can subside without having had negative side effects on anything other than your mood

Re: Stoicism's appeal to the rich and powerful (2019)

#157

Post by Palomides »

wallawe wrote: post #20
Palomides wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

height isn't fungible even if acquiring wealth is random, retaining wealth means choosing not to see and positively act on the state of the world

> retaining wealth means choosing not to see and positively act on the state of the world This is just silly. Just because you retain wealth doesn't mean you aren't positively acting to improve the current state of the world.

every dollar kept is a choice not to effect one dollar of change

Re: Stoicism's appeal to the rich and powerful (2019)

#158

Post by betenoire »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #114
betenoire wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

both "screwed up" and "perfect" are judgements calls/perspectives, and panicking isn't going to change things (panic doesn't necessarily make something worse either)

I think panic almost always makes things worse. There's a reason that in an emergency, the first piece of advice to people is "don't panic".

almost is the key term here, yes, it depends on the situation causing the panic.

Re: Stoicism's appeal to the rich and powerful (2019)

#159

Post by andoando »

freedomben wrote: post #133
andoando wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was a staunch Stoic, and a hollow disassociative mess is exactly what I became. Think of the end goal of the Stoic and what it takes to achieve it. At every misfortune, you rationalize and deny your natural emotions. If you do it well, you're an all understanding guru of life, sharing oneness with everything, and becoming nothing in particular. We have to accept that we too are a part of nature and flawed imperfect…

These are genuine questions, but please don't feel obligated to answer if you aren't comfortable. I'm fascinated to hear your story though. Are you generally a pretty gung-ho person? Do you feel drawn to strive toward perfection? Were you or are you previously religious with Christianity, Islam, or other world religion? Do you view stoicism as an all-or-nothing thing? I.e. do you think a person applying stoicism in a…

Growing up I was a pretty reserved, depressed kid. Culturally Christian background but I was a pretty staunch agnostic. I am not a perfectionist when it comes to work, but I did always strive to be as rational as I could in how I approached life. It was very much naturally my coping mechanism.

If faced with being wronged, "They're just a biological machine, how could I be mad at a tree that grew the wrong way?", personal failures, "I am just a biological machine, this is just where I am at at the moment", "Whats it matter what I accomplish? Were all dead in the end anyway", faced with some accident, "Well something was bound to happen at some point. Its nothing unexpected that it happened now", a loss of love, "It happens to everybody, things just didn't coincide".

Its all very calming, and can make you resilient to what's going on, but I came to realize that what I am really doing is disassociating from every aspect of my life. Instead of feeling/processing my emotions, I was simply just not caring about any of it. I read Nietzche's Genealogy of Morals, and it was such a derailment from my natural philosophy, and yet it felt he was saying everything that I wanted personally. You're human, be angry if you're angry, be sad if you're sad, do what you want to be doing, have and enforce YOUR will for life.

Yes I agree this line of thinking is definitely needed and can be extremely helpful to someone with the opposite problems, but as with all things in life, its complicated and in truth there is a fine balance that's always difficult to know in advance.

Re: Stoicism's appeal to the rich and powerful (2019)

#160

Post by exe34 »

mjburgess wrote: post #4

It's no accident that a roman emperor (tyrant, mass murderer, and courtier) is the premier famous stoic. Nor is it an accident that the next most famous case is that of British empire public schooling, british "stiff upper lip" stocisim. (EDIT: Marcus Aurelius) himself was no stoic philosopher, he merely wrote diaries to himself in his late days -- diaries he wanted burned, not published. And these were rehresals of…

it's like you can see the shadows, but you can't see the solids. nothing you have said is wrong, it's just so.... misguided.
Post reply on HN