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

A Simplified Modern Approach to Stoicism

philosophy-of-cbt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 50 posts

Re: A Simplified Modern Approach to Stoicism

#41

Post by barry-cotter »

kingmanaz wrote: post #11
guylhem wrote: post #2

Shorter list : - Read the "Epistulæ Morales ad Lucilium" from Seneca - Read the "Bhagavad Gita" to avoid being stuck in a given interpretation. - Shy away from religion. Find the truth by yourself And therefore make your own list of how to live your day. Feeling grateful and trying to see the lord in every being you encounter, friend or foe, is is mine. Also "no man does evil knowingly" seems wrong - sorry, but a tin…

>- Shy away from religion. Find the truth by yourself Keep an open mind. While reading the Stoics take the trouble to read Augustine's Confessions or dip into Aquinus' Summa Theologica. Breeze through the Quran. Spend some time with the Book of Mormon. Drop into a synagog and get to know the worshipers there. Don't dismiss ideas out of hand. Contemplate them, and let your curiosity lead you where you need to be.

Dear God, don't read the Book of Mormon or the Quran. I thought the Bible was soporific but those two...

Re: A Simplified Modern Approach to Stoicism

#42

Post by thisrod »

cwp wrote: post #27
jacoblyles wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Religion has the great advantage of being practiced in community. It may not have the pure wisdom of Seneca, but what good it can offer is more likely to stick. Unfortunately, the Christian community offers more social capital than the Stoic or the atheist in the west.

Sure. If you want to be a politician in the West, you can't really avoid participating in a Christian community of one kind or another. But people who are interested in stoicism probably have other goals.

As a counter-example, everyone in Australia knows that our Prime Minister is at least agnostic. It might well be a point in her favor, to the very slight extent that people care.

Re: A Simplified Modern Approach to Stoicism

#43

Post by hnriot »

thisrod wrote: post #42
cwp wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. If you want to be a politician in the West, you can't really avoid participating in a Christian community of one kind or another. But people who are interested in stoicism probably have other goals.

As a counter-example, everyone in Australia knows that our Prime Minister is at least agnostic. It might well be a point in her favor, to the very slight extent that people care.

Now if only they would stop censoring the Internet and using the same citizen monitoring that the Chinese do it might count for something.

The west is obsessed with religion, as has been pointed out, however hypocritical it might be it's a well practiced ritual in DC if you want to get elected for anything.

Re: A Simplified Modern Approach to Stoicism

#44

Post by nikatwork »

barry-cotter wrote: post #40
onno wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true only in America, or maybe in the "Anglosaxon" world in general, but certainly not in Europe.

It isn't true of Ireland, Britain, Australia or New Zealand. I don't think it's true of Canada. Among WEIRD [0] nations I think the US is the only one where being openly atheistic would abort any serious political career. [0]Western Educated Industrialised Rich Democracies

While being an atheist won't sink you, being christian certainly helps in Australia. For example, John Howard was fond of recording video messages which would get played in christian churches during the service.

My guess is that it would be more helpful at a local than a national level, but church influence could definitely swing a few key seats.

Re: A Simplified Modern Approach to Stoicism

#45

Post by hnriot »

kingmanaz wrote: post #11
guylhem wrote: post #2

Shorter list : - Read the "Epistulæ Morales ad Lucilium" from Seneca - Read the "Bhagavad Gita" to avoid being stuck in a given interpretation. - Shy away from religion. Find the truth by yourself And therefore make your own list of how to live your day. Feeling grateful and trying to see the lord in every being you encounter, friend or foe, is is mine. Also "no man does evil knowingly" seems wrong - sorry, but a tin…

>- Shy away from religion. Find the truth by yourself Keep an open mind. While reading the Stoics take the trouble to read Augustine's Confessions or dip into Aquinus' Summa Theologica. Breeze through the Quran. Spend some time with the Book of Mormon. Drop into a synagog and get to know the worshipers there. Don't dismiss ideas out of hand. Contemplate them, and let your curiosity lead you where you need to be.

Seriously? The Book of Mormon? Why not the same L Ron Hubbard, or maybe some Robert Heinlein?

You can't really put the writings of the Augustine the hippo [sic] alongside the Book of Mormon.

Re: A Simplified Modern Approach to Stoicism

#46

Post by cpeterso »

barry-cotter wrote: post #40
onno wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true only in America, or maybe in the "Anglosaxon" world in general, but certainly not in Europe.

It isn't true of Ireland, Britain, Australia or New Zealand. I don't think it's true of Canada. Among WEIRD [0] nations I think the US is the only one where being openly atheistic would abort any serious political career. [0]Western Educated Industrialised Rich Democracies

According to a 2012 Gallup poll, 43% of Americans would not vote for a qualified atheist candidate. For comparison, the numbers for a Muslim candidate or a gay or lesbian candidate were 40% and 30%, respectively.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155285/Atheists-Muslims-Bias-Pres...

Re: A Simplified Modern Approach to Stoicism

#47

Post by opminion »

kingmanaz wrote: post #18
snth wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, but we do know more about the world in many ways than the original Stoics did. William Irvine's book recasts the Stoic teachings a bit: we don't believe that we were created by Zeus, for example, so he talks about how to interpret Stoicism in an atheist way (if one wishes).

>Ah, but we do know more about the world I disagree completely. The appeal to progress is just as much a fallacy as the appeal to tradition. We do know more physical minutia, ie., slates and chalk have fallen to iPhones, sandals to sports cars, and yet the essential spirit of man is the same as it ever was, and that is what the Stoics are addressing. The descendents of Aristotle have continued reducing the world to i…

We do know more physical minutia, ie., slates and chalk have fallen to iPhones, sandals to sports cars, and yet the essential spirit of man is the same as it ever was, and that is what the Stoics are addressing.

Somehow we know, collectively, not to keep slaves anymore, or go to war so often. I find it difficult to label that as physical minutia.

Re: A Simplified Modern Approach to Stoicism

#48

Post by igravious »

kingmanaz wrote: post #26
igravious wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The appeal to progress is just as much a fallacy as the appeal to tradition. And what if the spirit of man is shaped by his technology and culture? > Atheism is a closed-minded agnosticism. Ouch. There are no compelling reasons to believe in a god or gods. Atheism is the rational response to this state of affairs. Agnosticism is for the weak.

>what if the spirit of man is shaped by his technology What if it isn't? Man no longer wars with trebuchets. Does that mean that the nature of man has changed? Similarly, man will someday set aside personal computers for something else. Does that mean that the nature of man will again change? A man's tools are not his nature, rather, nature is known through man's acts. Such acts are exampled in works such as Plutarch…

Atheism isn't dogma; whereas theism is. I will show you why.

We have both argued that we should approach this rationally. My reason tells me that I have been given zero proof for the existence of any of the gods described by theists. Kant himself (who you mention) discusses various proofs and dismisses them. What we are left with is the puzzle of existence itself and this feeling (that we all have) of wonder at the majesty and mystery of the world. I am disinclined to attribute any of this to some supernatural agent. Why should I? I see no reason to. Clearly I cannot rationally know there is no god or gods but I as Douglas Adams pointed out I'm not going to take some kind of wishy-washy hedge my bets stance on the matter. When talking about the existence of some kind of objects that has the attributes that god or the gods are claimed to have the burden of proof lies with those who assert this agent's existence. Therefore I shall continue to believe in the non-existence of a god or gods. Show me my dogma: I don't assert the existence of anything without proof, I reject the proof claims of others and assert the non-existence based on lack of evidence.

Re: A Simplified Modern Approach to Stoicism

#49

Post by igravious »

kingmanaz wrote: post #26
igravious wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The appeal to progress is just as much a fallacy as the appeal to tradition. And what if the spirit of man is shaped by his technology and culture? > Atheism is a closed-minded agnosticism. Ouch. There are no compelling reasons to believe in a god or gods. Atheism is the rational response to this state of affairs. Agnosticism is for the weak.

>what if the spirit of man is shaped by his technology What if it isn't? Man no longer wars with trebuchets. Does that mean that the nature of man has changed? Similarly, man will someday set aside personal computers for something else. Does that mean that the nature of man will again change? A man's tools are not his nature, rather, nature is known through man's acts. Such acts are exampled in works such as Plutarch…

> A man's tools are not his nature, rather, nature is known through man's acts.

Man's tools alter reality and alter our perception of reality. The camera changes the artist; the atomic bomb changes us all. I guess the term "[essential] spirit of man" is kind of nebulous anyway so I wouldn't argue strongly against you. I am sure we agree on many more points than we would disagree on. I have no beef with stoicism.

Re: A Simplified Modern Approach to Stoicism

#50

Post by ryanholiday »

kingmanaz wrote: post #7
lpolovets wrote: post #4

If anyone is interested in a book on the subject, I really like William Irvine's "A Guide to the Good Life" ( http://www.amazon.com/Guide-Good-Life-Ancient-Stoic/dp/01953... ) I have some extensive book notes here: http://www.quora.com/Leo-Polovets/Exceptionally-long-book-no...

Personally, I would cut out the middle men. Avoid glossy-covered and over-marketed summaries of other men's work. Grab a copy of Epictetus' discourses and his Enchiridion. Read Aurelius' meditations. Get familiar with Plutarch's Lives. This will get one started cheaply: http://www.ebay.com/itm/LUCRETIUS-EPICTETUS-12-Britannica-Gr... Be aware, this volume includes Lucretius who is not a stoic, rather, a typical reduct…

Agreed. Stoicism is not "philosophy" as we've been taught to think of it (that is, dense, boring, confusing).

Even the old translations of Marcus Aurelius, Seneca and Epictetus are straight forward enough for anyone.

Post reply on HN