In theory stoicism's precepts are not bad, in practice, however, I've rarely seen them amount to little more than an excuse for obstinacy and ignorance toward legitimate problems and one's own inadequacies. The modern day capitalist tech-bro peddled variant of "stoicism" especially is often just used to justify a retreat inward, and a failure to recognize one's own relationships to others and one's own responsibility. Worse, it is a wholly uncritical "philosophy" that encourages people to accept the status quo rather than endeavor to make it better and change it.
Stoicism's appeal to the rich and powerful (2019)
251–260 of 338 posts
Re: Stoicism's appeal to the rich and powerful (2019)
#252It'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…
I don't see how the fact that his most famous work is his diary makes Marcus Aurelius not a philosopher. Is there some magic credential you need to be a philosopher? As far as I can tell, philosophers come from all over the place; slaves, clergy, clerks, etc. Since there wasn't an institution to get his philosophy degree in, I think we can give him a pass? With regard to the other criticism that there are rough bits…
I don’t know anyone who would say Marcus Aurelius was the greatest emperor. He was the last of the “Five Good Emperors”, which correctly implies that he was the one who dropped the ball on succession planning. He was a good emperor aside from that, but even out of the Five Good Emperors you could make a case for any of the other four ahead of him. And none of those guys come close to Augustus, Domitian, or Constantine.
That having been said, Marcus Aurelius was definitely one of the better emperors. Leagues ahead of guys like Nero or Caligula or Elagabalus or uh, Commodus (who was his son). It’s been said that the reign of Marcus Aurelius was the high point of the Roman Empire as a whole, but that’s a double edged statement about the emperor himself.
Re: Stoicism's appeal to the rich and powerful (2019)
#253I 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.
Great quote; I'll reuse this.
Re: Stoicism's appeal to the rich and powerful (2019)
#254In theory stoicism's precepts are not bad, in practice, however, I've rarely seen them amount to little more than an excuse for obstinacy and ignorance toward legitimate problems and one's own inadequacies. The modern day capitalist tech-bro peddled variant of "stoicism" especially is often just used to justify a retreat inward, and a failure to recognize one's own relationships to others and one's own responsibility…
It's one of those traps where the people who need the philosophy the least are most drawn to it.
If you're really emotionally disconnected, stoicism has an intuitive appeal because it justifies what you already do. Although, there a distinction people miss here, observing an emotion and letting it pass is far different from denying the emotion in the first place.
On the opposite side, people who go through life dumping and blaming their emotions on others are very quick to label stoicism as toxic, when it's the philosophy that could help them the most.
It's just one of those things, by definition we can't see our own blindspots.
Re: Stoicism's appeal to the rich and powerful (2019)
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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.
Re: Stoicism's appeal to the rich and powerful (2019)
#256Earlier 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's not a consistent moral philosophy that they hold to in other parts of their life, nor is it meant to be. There are better answers than this, but they are oftentime…
>> 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.
God had a dozen billion years or so of lead time, but he couldn't piece the plan together without giving your toddler glioblastoma.
Trust the process!
Re: Stoicism's appeal to the rich and powerful (2019)
#257As I type this there are 239 comments on a piece that's 6 years old, and also pretty poor to begin with.
So, stuff happens, and you just put up with it? That's anti-human. What are you? A leaf in a stream? Dammit, you have agency.
Nothing good would ever have happened were we all so passive. No wonder the rich and powerful like it, nothing they want to work actually works unless you have a bunch of passive, stoical, individuals. Sheep, basically.
Re: Stoicism's appeal to the rich and powerful (2019)
#258One perspective is that meditation and stoicism helps silence guilt about being so properous in an unequal society.
They're useful practices in general
Re: Stoicism's appeal to the rich and powerful (2019)
#259It'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.
They're useful practices even when you have nothing. They emphasize having no power over anything but your own mind and reaction to external events. You cannot control being carried away by the government or forced to be a slave or torture victim. You can still control your mind in those circumstances, and that is what stoicism emphasizes.
Re: Stoicism's appeal to the rich and powerful (2019)
#260"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 al…
[deleted]