Live data from Hacker News

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

exurbe.com

271–280 of 338 posts

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

#271
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…

[deleted]

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

#272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 al…

I think the Cromwellian dictum "Trust in God but keep your powder dry" is the intelligent Christian's attitude to this...

I think most American christianity is actually fake christianity or derived christianity. To understand real christianity, once must read tolstoy.

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

#273
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what is your answer for Epicurean paradox?

Free will. If people are allowed to make choices, evil is a possibility. You can argue that free will isn't good, but I'm not sure what evidence supports that argument. So if God allows free will, then evil can happen. Just because he doesn't immediately stop it (read: eliminate free will) doesn't make God not-good. I think part of this is man's hubris in assuming we can know what is perfectly good. The Epicurean par…

And yet the Bible has numerous stories where it seems people don't have free will, with God either "hardening their hearts" or laying out what they'll do in the near future. It's obvious from the Bible that either God plays an active role in the lives of people, whether they ask for it or not, thus negating their free will, and that there is some level of sight into future actions. All that is without discussing whether God is omniscient.

The Bible is not very clear about what happens with an afterlife. The book of Revelation is where you find the most intimations of divine judgement, but the OT has little to nothing and many Biblical scholars agree that the idea of end leans heavily towards the Jewish idea of a literal heaven on earth for the chosen people and that's all.

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

#274

It's a philosophy that is a lot easier to adhere to when you have some amount of power or agency and your basic needs are met.

I think all philosophies are easier to adhere to with basic needs met. Living life without basic needs makes everything difficult.

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

#275
post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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.? > Yes, but this is something people say in times of grief, for the comfort of the grieving It is the stupidest thing to say to someone who is grieving.

What would you accept to be said? What would be good enough for you? Words are not magical, they are just sounds. In the most important situations in life and in death, words are simply lacking. We as humans haven't been gifted with neither a spoken nor a written language which can encompass all our feelings and meanings. Words cannot even come close. So people have to do with what they have. And you are in no positi…

It doesn't take much common sense to realize that someone who's neck deep into grief isn't going to find much comfort in being told something happened for a reason.

I happen to believe that everything does happen for a reason, because in general that makes more sense to me and there's no proof either way; but in the middle of the storm it's an extremely difficult position to hold.

What people actually do need in those situations is presence, someone who listens; not good advice.

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

#276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats patently false. Some people do control other people, some people do control whole societies. What stoicism does is: for the underclass, it tells them to accept such control. Lying that "you have no control" over working conditions, exploitation, misery, hunger, suffering, etc. Do nothing, because nothing you do will matter. And for the capitalists upper class what it does is to validate the atroicities they com…

If you're underclass and beat up on by society above you, stoicism is a very rational philosophy to adopt. If you're upper crust and controlling everyone beneath you, I think it's still worthwhile to consider stoicism. Or is there some kind of divide - if one is poor you should enact one set of philosophies, if you're rich and powerful one should enact different philosophies?

> If you're underclass and beat up on by society above you, stoicism is a very rational philosophy to adopt.

Will that help your situation?

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

#277
Thoughts are very powerful, that's why visualization is such a big deal in elite sports etc.

Some stoics teach that you should imagine the worst possible outcomes to shift your perception of the current (not quite as terrible) situation.

Feels like a very bad idea to me.

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

#278
post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does free will explains children with cancer or is that good thing?

You should put more effort into addressing the very detailed and thoughtful reply you got (at your request) and which you're currently ignoring with just another challenge (with a grammatical mistake). You're currently a troll in the technical definition of the term: baiting for replies and then just mocking what you catch.

You are just dismissing my question without addressing it.

I think free will can be attributed only to actions people are doing. But not everything can be attributed to people (or other animals).

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

#279
post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does free will explains children with cancer or is that good thing?

Free will -> original sin -> all manner of diseases, suffering tyat are part of the human condition. Even without the theology, a person suffering due to a forebear's poor decision is well-understood: a decent percentage if people think it's the natural order for a child to go hungry if their parents are drug-addicts or imprisoned.

How is hungry children, because of it's parents, relevant to my question?

If someone gets cancer as toddler who's fault is that? If someone is born with disability, with caused by new mutation, who's fault is that? Are these part of free will? Do you thing that it is good that it is happening?

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

#280
post #277

Thoughts are very powerful, that's why visualization is such a big deal in elite sports etc. Some stoics teach that you should imagine the worst possible outcomes to shift your perception of the current (not quite as terrible) situation. Feels like a very bad idea to me.

Have you tried it? It takes only a minute or so, what's the worst that could happen?
Post reply on HN