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

The Soldiers' Philosopher (2014)

philosophyforlife.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 63 posts

Re: The Soldiers' Philosopher (2014)

#21

Post by gljiva »

jajko wrote: post #12
pjlegato wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Common misconception; Stoicism is not about curtailing or repressing emotions. Stoicism is about not allowing your emotions to govern you. Subtle but profound difference.

Hmm, I may be a stoic by accident then (or more like coming there on my own). Emotions are great, I've fallen madly in love few times, I've cried from happiness when summiting Matterhorn, proposing to my girlfriend on top of Mont Blanc or checking some other higher peaks, I've had tears of joy when cutting umbilical cords of my kids and so on. But I never let them run my life, and I remove them from any bigger decisi…

Ditto the first sentence.

One imperfect, but applicable analogy: "emotions are a fuel, and reasoning should be the steering system"

I think it would be useful to emphasize that not letting the emotions govern applies to regret as well: Yeah, I did what I shouldn't have (or missed an opportunity), but now it's done and staying miserable helps noone, just makes me feel bad. Let's take it seriously and make the best of it (at least using it as a very important lesson), focusing on improving the future, not crying about the past.

Re: The Soldiers' Philosopher (2014)

#22

Post by jajko »

gljiva wrote: post #21
jajko wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, I may be a stoic by accident then (or more like coming there on my own). Emotions are great, I've fallen madly in love few times, I've cried from happiness when summiting Matterhorn, proposing to my girlfriend on top of Mont Blanc or checking some other higher peaks, I've had tears of joy when cutting umbilical cords of my kids and so on. But I never let them run my life, and I remove them from any bigger decisi…

Ditto the first sentence. One imperfect, but applicable analogy: "emotions are a fuel, and reasoning should be the steering system" I think it would be useful to emphasize that not letting the emotions govern applies to regret as well: Yeah, I did what I shouldn't have (or missed an opportunity), but now it's done and staying miserable helps noone, just makes me feel bad. Let's take it seriously and make the best of…

Completely agree. I see mistakes (not really bad ones, I managed to avoid those due to what I wrote and probably some luck) as necessary learning steps that got me where I am right now. I am happy with current state, and thats all that matters. Then inevitably avoiding those mistakes would not made me the man I am today, you learn much more from bad experience rather than good one.

Past girlfriends are a prime example - since they are past, there was always a not-nice breakup for those long trelationships, but every time I learned very valuable lessons about psychology and personalities and also myself and areas to work on, that led me to my current, non-perfect but pretty amazing wife.

Of course then focus of not repeating those mistakes, this is going back to rationality.

And past is a great source of lessons, but that's about it - focus on now and future, time spent pondering about 'what if' is wasting precious little time we still have in this reality, and it will go fast.

Re: The Soldiers' Philosopher (2014)

#23

Post by nonrandomstring »

bbor wrote: post #15
nonrandomstring wrote: post #7

Excellent read. Original perspectives too - just drop the D from PTSD and get with the idea that this is normal and the hardest people are soft on the inside.

Well, clinical psychology is oriented pretty much exclusively towards preventing “disruption” or “distress” or other synonyms for “bad”, which they call “pathological behavior”. PTSD is, obviously, very bad when compared to people who don’t have it, thus “disorder”. I do think some education around that could help, tho! You’re right that it absolutely shouldn’t imply a moral failing. I just think that’s a bigger conv…

What you say sounds sensible. There is definitely a danger that while we try to remove stigma that can also normalise things. In turn that leads to a higher societal acceptance and a counterproductive effect on protecting people. We go full circle back to "just suck it up because it's normal". By recognising the feelings as normal I didn't mean to imply treating it any less seriously.

Re: The Soldiers' Philosopher (2014)

#25

Post by The_Colonel »

rightbyte wrote: post #18
KineticLensman wrote: post #6

I used to work with Soldiers a lot (I helped build training simulations) and was often amazed by their perspectives. I remember theoretical discussions (Q: when is the enemy defeated? A: when he thinks he is) alongside powerful raw emotions (Dutch peacekeepers unable to intervene in the Srebrenica massacre). On one project, where things were technically crashing around our ears, I was staggered by the emotional and p…

> Q: when is the enemy defeated? A: when he thinks he is Well, giving up is taboo in the military. As is fragging etc. I think there is a big correlation between being defeated and thinking you are. The quote seems to imply a one way causality. Like as if the realization causes the defeat.

You interpret the question in a tactical context, but I sense it was in a strategic sense.

e. g. US thought it defeated Taliban by the end of 2001, Taliban certainly didn't think so. Similar thing with Palestinians vs. Israel.

Re: The Soldiers' Philosopher (2014)

#26

Post by keybored »

bbor wrote: post #16

You’re in a lethality and violence-soaked environment, increasingly in population-centric environments. There’s a lot of grey area - who’s the enemy, are they a voluntary or involuntary human-shield, and so on. I guess she understandably doesn’t want to focus on that part, but this has to be a huge part of rising PTSD rates: it’s hard to ignore that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were ultimately immorally waged. Wh…

If someone posted an article about The Russian Officers’ Philosopher it would get flagged to hell. But since it’s about the empire on the other side of the Pacific it’s kosher and should be treated with solemn reflection.

Re: The Soldiers' Philosopher (2014)

#27

Post by rightbyte »

The_Colonel wrote: post #25
rightbyte wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Q: when is the enemy defeated? A: when he thinks he is Well, giving up is taboo in the military. As is fragging etc. I think there is a big correlation between being defeated and thinking you are. The quote seems to imply a one way causality. Like as if the realization causes the defeat.

You interpret the question in a tactical context, but I sense it was in a strategic sense. e. g. US thought it defeated Taliban by the end of 2001, Taliban certainly didn't think so. Similar thing with Palestinians vs. Israel.

Hm ye maybe. But in the 'tactical sense' we have routing, which kinda is applicable of a self-fulfilling prophecy of believing you are defeated, makes you defeated. Maybe not very relevant today though.

Re: The Soldiers' Philosopher (2014)

#28

Post by paganel »

> What do you think of Martin Seligman’s Comprehensive Soldier Fitness programme [ a $180 million programme introduced in 2010 to teach resilient-thinking skills to all service-members, to try and prevent PTSD occurrence]?

Come on, this is a shill interview if I have ever saw one. Fuck all this, the US Army personnel, past and present, deserves way better than this psy-op-ed crap. All soldiers, former and present, deserve that.

And back to the, let's say essence, of the article, you could tell that it was written in 2014, back when Stoicism just had had a strong revival, hence why this lady is mentioning it ad-nauseam. I'd say that by 2016-2018 it was already gone, either way, large parts of the US/Western establishment sure as hell left Stoicism apart when confronted with Trump, for example.

Re: The Soldiers' Philosopher (2014)

#29

Post by dullcrisp »

keybored wrote: post #26
bbor wrote: post #16

You’re in a lethality and violence-soaked environment, increasingly in population-centric environments. There’s a lot of grey area - who’s the enemy, are they a voluntary or involuntary human-shield, and so on. I guess she understandably doesn’t want to focus on that part, but this has to be a huge part of rising PTSD rates: it’s hard to ignore that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were ultimately immorally waged. Wh…

If someone posted an article about The Russian Officers’ Philosopher it would get flagged to hell. But since it’s about the empire on the other side of the Pacific it’s kosher and should be treated with solemn reflection.

Nothing goes together like Russians and whataboutism

Re: The Soldiers' Philosopher (2014)

#30

Post by biorach »

dullcrisp wrote: post #29
keybored wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone posted an article about The Russian Officers’ Philosopher it would get flagged to hell. But since it’s about the empire on the other side of the Pacific it’s kosher and should be treated with solemn reflection.

Nothing goes together like Russians and whataboutism

That wasn't whataboutism
Post reply on HN