Live data from Hacker News

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

exurbe.com

231–240 of 338 posts

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

#231
post #5
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

Guilty may be the wrong word but you should be aware that you got lucky. Like a lot of "self-made" men who got lucky and then tell others that they could achieve the same if only they worked as hard.

I hate articles "I did X and so can you". No, people often can't do what you did.

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

#232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the story oh Hiob/Job,he is unaffected in his behavior and the trust instilled in him from others, which clearly discouble his person from his misfortune. In the original there is no word for faith, believe or trust only for character. Job is of good character despite his misfortune, that makes him a man of God.

Technically correct, but quite misleading. The idea of "trust in God" or "faithfulness" is completely central to Job. The story doesn't concern itself with "doctrinal faith", but it implicitly discusses "faith" in the general sense of trust in the providence of God in the face of challenges that might make one abandon Him.

The word used was "aemuna" or "æmunatō". The most basic translation is reliability. The other word much later was pisteōs with loyalty in its most basic translation.

The concept of faith as you describe it is a late interpretation, morphing both concepts together. Jobs "faith" is his reliability of character, neither his believe nor faith, yet axiomatically the definition behind those words. That if you choose to believe in God and have faith your reliability of character will come or strive to have it.

Without being misleading, you may have it without any believe or faith in God.

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

#233
post #47

I can’t speak for the rich and powerful (as I’m neither), nor do I subscribe to stoicism necessarily. But I do work in tech and enjoyed (and periodically re-read) Marcus Aurelius’ “Meditations” I originally read it out of curiosity, not often you get to see a leader’s supposedly unedited, personal diary. But I keep coming back because of the calming prose and (imo) useful lessons about dealing with a stressful world.…

For years my HN profile has had the Meditations quote:

A cucumber is bitter. Throw it away. There are briars in the road. Turn aside from them. This is enough. Do not add, "And why were such things made in the world?"

Perhaps someday I'll try putting it into practice.

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

#234

I feel stoicism works reasonably well when your life goes generally well. If your life is going very badly, I think it ends up like a lot of positive thinking where you have to live in an almost delusional world where you pretend things are good while they really aren't

My experience is the opposite. Stoicism (and those they influenced like Plutarch, Emerson, Thoreau) helped me in hard times.

It's divine getting to a point where you can at once care deeply about something and yet realize it's fate is out of your control---and so not break when that thing dies. Even approaching that state by degrees is worthwhile, and I found stoic thinking to help with it.

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

#235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would depend on the translation, and what you understood him to be doing. One of the ones I read recently was incredibly bastardized to seem more stoical, completely removing in cases his own asides. These are diaries he wanted burned -- they were just exercises in writing for himself to clam himself down. He is writing to himself . Go back and read a few sections and ask: "what happened to Marcus on this evening…

I disagree with your characterization of these passages. These seem like questions a person reflects on, not self admonishment. For instance: > > Are you ever going to achieve goodness? Ever going to be simple, whole, and naked—as plain to see as the body that contains you? Know what an affectionate and loving disposition would feel like? Ever be fulfilled, ever stop desiring—lusting and longing for people and things…

The view that Aurelius was depressed is very widespread. I've read the whole meditations, in several translations, and parts in the original. I've translated part of the original in anger at what deceitful translations are being put out today, which delete half of what he says to make him sound more stoical.

Go read more of it. I just chose two parts at random to narrate my thinking in reading these passages again to provide some background here. I'm obviously not making my case on these quotes.

> It's a lot like buddhists reflecting on nirvana.

This is how its bastardized, but that's not there in the text. This is the emperor of rome, at the end of his life, in a state of depression writing a journal to himself. He's an old tyrant, a self-confessed self-righteous "schoolmaster" who goes around admonishing people, including himself.

He's not writing religious literature; this is not scripture -- he isnt starting or continuning a religion or a philosophy. He wanted the whole thing burned. This is a ahistorical cultish reinterpretation to fit an agenda.

Listen to the man himself (2 mins of scrolling through):

NB. Recall you means the man himself. He is talking to himself. This is not a published work of philosophy, there is no audience. He's admonishing himself.

------

# 8.1 Another encouragement to humility: you can’t claim to have lived your life as a philosopher—not even your whole adulthood. You can see for yourself how far you are from philosophy. And so can many others. You’re tainted. It’s not so easy now—to have a reputation as a philosopher. And your position is an obstacle as well.

-----

# 8.9 Don’t be overheard complaining about life at court. Not even to yourself.

----

# 8.21 Turn it inside out: What is it like? What is it like old? Or sick? Or selling itself on the streets?

They all die soon—praiser and praised, rememberer and remembered. Remembered in these parts or in a corner of them. Even there they don’t all agree with each other (or even with themselves).

And the whole earth a mere point in space.

----

# 8.53 You want praise from people who kick themselves every fifteen minutes, the approval of people who despise themselves. (Is it a sign of self-respect to regret nearly everything you do?)

----

# 9.33 All that you see will soon have vanished, and those who see it vanish will vanish themselves, and the ones who reached old age have no advantage over the untimely dead.

----

# 9.3

Or perhaps you need some tidy aphorism to tuck away in the back of your mind. Well, consider two things that should reconcile you to death: the nature of the things you’ll leave behind you, and the kind of people you’ll no longer be mixed up with. There’s no need to feel resentment toward them—in fact, you should look out for their well-being, and be gentle with them—but keep in mind that everything you believe is meaningless to those you leave behind. Because that’s all that could restrain us (if anything could)—the only thing that could make us want to stay here: the chance to live with those who share our vision. But now? Look how tiring it is—this cacophony we live in. Enough to make you say to death, “Come quickly. Before I start to forget myself, like them.”

---

----

# 10.3 Everything that happens is either endurable or not.

If it’s endurable, then endure it. Stop complaining.

If it’s unendurable … then stop complaining. Your destruction will mean its end as well.

---

I know the man well enough. The idea that he's there a monk writing scripture is an absurdity. Just read what he says to himself. These are his private thoughts, he writes out to himself.

In 9.3 there he basically says, "i'll be glad to be dead and rid of these degenerates" ginned up with his usual self-righteousness -- an emperor of rome indeed.

They are phrased by his teachings as a child, by professional stoic philosophers. These were the manners and habits of thinking he was taught. And he here rehearses them alongside a vast amount of bitterness, and disappointment.

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

#236

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…

One of my favorite comments on HN. Thank you for this.

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

#237
post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say what you will about Julius Caesar, at least he fought in the trenches. Many times were the battle was the toughest. My reptile brain can appreciate that, at least!

He also ordered a decimation on his own troops. Utterly barbaric.

Not saying you're wrong, Julius Caesar committed more than his fair share of atrocities, but do you have a source?

Wikipedia says that Julius Caesar threatened his troops with decimation but didn't carry it out. I asked chatgpt about it and it said that Julius Caesar did order one, but then said no contemporary sources for this exist. It then claimed that Plutarch wrote that Julius Caesar made his troops draw lots, which certainly suggests he ordered a decimation, but I checked two English translations of Parallel Lives and neither of them contain any mention of this. I also asked the not to translate the original Greek, and that also doesn't mention it. The chatbot thinking it happened suggests that somebody has written that it did, but I can't figure out who and where.

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

#238
Stoicism and Protestantism are closely linked, and in my opinion the former served as inspiration for the latter.

So given the historic dominance of the Protestant culture in large parts of "the west", it should not be a surprise that rich and powerful men find Stoicism appealing.

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

#239

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…

Your view of stoicism is off. Nihilism (existential, moral, etc.) are not compatible with stoicism.

Read https://www.amazon.com/Guide-Good-Life-Ancient-Stoic/dp/0195....

Marcus Aurelius is a stoic, just look at some of his quotes, that is stoicism.

"The happiness of your life depends upon the quality of your thoughts."

"Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one."

"If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself, but to your estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment."

"When you arise in the morning think of what a privilege it is to be alive, to think, to enjoy, to love ..."

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

#240
post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ma…

That's one of the effects of being particular -- being a particular person, with particular feelings -- the effects are particular. That's part of the point, part of the aim. The received view of the tyrannical mass murderers of rome is hagiography, if a few "on my side in the debate" (or otherwise) think I'm being too harsh and want to undermine that a little: great! I would myself do the same if I heard myself spea…

Not everybody is as emotional as you based on your description, some of us naturally have more control over our state of mind, emotions generally, and don't live so reactively.

This allows us not only avoid those typical massive mistakes in life (addictions, bad but attractive partners, cheating, being miserable parents, generally bad emotional big-consequence choices and so on) but also steer us to more successful life paths than most of our peers, whatever that may mean in each case.

Your system works for you and makes you happy and content with your life and its direction? Great for you, but that path is yours only, no need to broaden it to all humanity.

Post reply on HN