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

181–190 of 338 posts

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

#181

Post by goatlover »

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…

According to Paul's letters, the main disagreement Paul had was over whether Gentiles should become Jewish converts, including being circumcised, instead of just being God-fearers, a category already recognized in Judaism as long as they abided the Noahide covenant. Paul didn't think becoming Jewish mattered, because Jesus would return soon and everything would be transformed, including those in Christ.

There isn't any indication as to whether James, Peter, John (the Three Pillars in Jerusalem) disagreed with Paul over his Christology or eschatological expectations (Jesus was probably an apocalyptic prophet like John the Baptist). Paul says Jesus first appeared to them, so they likely began believing God had raised him to heaven before Paul. Paul says he persecuted their movement at first, likely because he found it offensive. A risen crucified messiah would be offensive to a Pharisee.

Paul further says they had their gospel (literally good news) for Jews and he was sent to Gentiles, but again there isn't any indication over whether there were substantive disagreements beyond whether Gentiles needed to become Jewish. That and some people clearly questioned Paul's claim to apostleship, particularly in relationship to other apostles, especially in Jerusalem.

What developed after the destruction of the Temple with the proto-orthodox, Ebionites and Gnostic Christianity is not necessarily a reflection of Paul's conflict. Those were further developments.

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

#182

Post by munificent »

samspot wrote: post #81

"But on the negative side, stoicism’s Providential claim that everything in the universe is already perfect and that things which seem bad or unjust are secretly good underneath (a claim Christianity borrowed from Stoicism) can be used to justify the idea that the rich and powerful are meant to be rich and powerful, that the poor and downtrodden are meant to be poor and downtrodden, and that even the worst actions ar…

> For one, that all bad things are actually good is not a tenet of Christianity and is not in the Bible.

Surely you in your life you have met many Christians who said "God works in mysterious ways", "there is a purpose for everything", "trust in the Lord", etc.?

In the Christian communities I grew up around, it was a pervasive idea that misfortune was explained away by our limited understanding. These cliches were always trotted out when something horrible had happened which needed to be explained away.

It's arguably a necessary tenet for Christianity to hold together as a coherent belief system. If you believe in an omnipotent, benevolent God, you need some way to explain why bad things still happen[1].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

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

#183

Post by 9dev »

bko wrote: post #5
qoez wrote: post #3

One perspective is that meditation and stoicism helps silence guilt about being so properous in an unequal society.

Why should one feel guilt about being prosperous in an unequal society? Even if you accept that it's based entirely on luck rather than merits, I don't see why you should feel guilt. A few examples of things based entirely on luck that no one really argues we should feel guilty about: Being tall Having high innate level of intelligence Athletic Physical beauty

The problem is that the things you identified as being based on luck have cascading second-order effects. For example, people that are perceived as handsome have better chances in wage negotiations, and the same goes for people with a lighter skin tone. The most strongly connected trait to being financially successful: being born in a rich and educated family.

These things are outside your control, but entirely in control of a society.

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

#184

Post by zx10rse »

mjburgess wrote: post #38
andrewmutz wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your perceptions of stoicism are so detatched from mine, I have to ask, what does stoicism mean to you? The wikipedia entry describes it like this: "The Stoics believed that the practice of virtue is enough to achieve eudaimonia: a well-lived life. The Stoics identified the path to achieving it with a life spent practicing the four cardinal virtues in everyday life — prudence, fortitude, temperance, and justice — as…

> prudence, fortitude, temperance, and justice I adopt rather the opposite virutes. Imprudence, risk, throwing-your-self-at-a-wall-until-you-cant, intemperance (conflict, debate, disagreement, competition) and pragmatism (address what is rather than what should be). Behind each of the stoic virutues is a psychological position to dettach, dissociate and live in a more abstracted conceptual space. This can be theraput…

What you adopt are not virtues.

It is absurd in the face of death by plane falling from the sky to not smile at it.

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

#185

Post by lo_zamoyski »

billfruit wrote: post #26
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…

If you read Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy, he takes rather dim view of Marcus Aurelius, and specifically doubts the seriousness of his writings and ideas, considering them somewhat dubious.

Russell himself makes false and dubious claims in that book (for example, claims about Aristotle/Aristotelianism, which he hated). I don't regard him to be an especially reliable or objective expositor of philosophy or philosophical history, generally speaking.

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

#186

Post by ChildOfChaos »

kittikitti wrote: post #148

I absolutely hate Stoicism. It's used by people as a way to shut me up when I'm expressing negativity about something "I can't control". Almost everything about our lives, especially as we transition to this rent based economy, is out of our control. Stoicism just creates lonely people who are obsessed with controlling things and others.

This is nonsense though. How are people using stoicism to shut you up? I've never seen anyone do that. If they are, they are misunderstanding the intention.

Doing what you can control and focusing on that, doesn't mean that you also don't speak up for change, because that is entirely something you can still control. In fact it's encouraged, because of stoic 'virtue', "That which you do the right thing, that is all that matters"

If others are using it to shut up up, that is what is outside of your control, you ignore it and do the right thing anyway.

Under stoicism, you would still push and advocate for change as an individual, but you would understand that if the world doesn't change or doesn't respond, that is out of your control, but you can and should still excuse your right to do that, because that is within your control.

The entire argument here seems to be missing the point.

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

#187

Post by andoando »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #180
andoando wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?", pers…

Do you have any idea why stoicism (and rationalism) gets conflated with lack of passion and goals? In my experience, both are tools to get what one wants, but it seems like a lot of people miss out on the instrumentality. Goal orientation is necessary to determine when emotional repression is appropriate.

I suppose because people consider it as all encompassing guiding philosophy for life.

At least to a philosopher, philosophy is the core basis which all your thoughts, and consequently goals originate.

I think it depends if were talking about "how to live" versus "how to be successful and establish your business this year"

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

#189

Post by ChildOfChaos »

Half the comment section seems to be entirely missing the point of Stoicism.

Stoicism is not merely just accepting everything and allowing it to happen, without pushing for advancement. That is absurd.

Under Stoicism, you would still push for that advancement and speak up for it, as doing so is not living according to virtue or nature (which Stoics defined our nature as our ability to reason). It's just that you will focus within that on the things that you can control, such as your own personal activism.

If anything it pushes people to do more in this area, not less. Because often people feel helpless so don't do anything, Stoicism would teach to do it anyway, because that is the part you can control and the only way to live a life of virtue, what the world does in reaction to that, is up to the world.

People that have a problem with this way of thinking/being seem to have taken a reductionist version of the philosophy to argue against it.

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

#190

Post by tome »

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…

> I think on HN my contempt towards stocism itself has value here, since it invites the person reflecting on stocism to be less automatically respectful of it.

In case it's helpful to you, I'll point out that your effect on me was entirely the opposite. I'm not too positively inclined to stoicism, and I feel the Epicurean and Nietzschean critiques of it hold a lot of water. However, the tone of your top-level post made me instinctively defensive of the qualities of stoicism! I think that's because I perceived the tone of your top-level post as demonstrating something akin to what Nietzsche called ressentiment.

Post reply on HN