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

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

exurbe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 338 posts

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

#291

Post by vishnugupta »

munificent wrote: post #182
samspot wrote: 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…

> 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…

> misfortune was explained away by our limited understanding

I don’t think this is unique to Christianity. A similar key concept in Hinduism is “karma”.

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

#292

Post by halyconWays »

timeon wrote: post #278
halyconWays wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I'm not dismissing shit. I'm offering you an observation about your rude behavior.

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

#293

Post by wakawaka28 »

mjburgess wrote: post #4

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…

>It's no accident that a roman emperor (tyrant, mass murderer, and courtier) is the premier famous stoic

Marcus Aurelius wasn't just any Roman Emperor. He was considered one of the better ones, even called "The Last Good Emperor."

>Stoicism, under this light, is training for a ruthless sort of leadership. From the pov of The Leader, all adoration is fake, all prestige, and status. Your job is to pretend it matters because it matters to your followers. It's a deeply hollow, dissociative, nihilistic philosophy which dresses up the status quo as "God's plan" -- a rationalization of interest to the elite above all others.

This is so off-base I don't know where to start. Stoicism is not nihilistic. One of the major tenets of stoicism is to free your mind from trouble that is outside your control, or rather to correctly identify which things are and are not within your control. It's not supposed to turn you into an ascetic psychopath, it's supposed to foster healthy reflection on the true nature of life and your own situation. It is easier said than done, of course, but some people never even consider the possibility that their many anxious thoughts are entirely pointless and counterproductive.

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

#294

Post by wakawaka28 »

mjburgess wrote: post #38
andrewmutz wrote: post #31

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…

>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).

Pragmatism is a form of prudence. A lot of the other stuff you mention could vaguely be called fortitude.

>Outside of that, personally I think: attach too much, risk more than you ought, and participate in the world ("dirty your hands") by making the best of it, rather than anything more abstract.

This is a recipe for unhappiness. By definition, attaching too much will ultimately (and perhaps immediately) cause you grief. Risking more than what is prudent could lead you to disaster. (Quit your job, for example, and you could end up homeless! That might be a good time to start thinking stoically but a better one would be prior to making such a mistake.) Participating in the world and making the best of it is what stoicism calls for, but it questions what is worth your energy and how you should react to failure.

>Professors of stocism like to make a virute of dying quiety -- this i think absurd. If the plane is falling from the sky, i envy the people screaming -- they have the right levels of attachemnt to their own lives.

The classical Stoic discussion of death is more of a rhetorical device than a prescription for how to live. Nobody is out here saying you should treat your life as unimportant. But extreme fear of death is a thing that gives people anxiety, and sometimes interferes with them doing things that they ought to do.

I've read many Stoic quotes about making the most of life and not wasting time. That kind of stuff isn't suggestive of laying down to rot. I've never seen a Stoic praise excessive laziness.

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

#295

Post by charlieyu1 »

bko wrote: post #5
qoez wrote: 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

I’m not that wealthy but have learnt not to feel guilt about that, or feeling guilt about most things (maybe if I’m actively wrong eg if I had actively hurt people, but now that’s a moral thing not a guilt thing)

Guilt is often unhealthy and leads people to do destructive things that is more damaging.

But I can totally understand why people would feel guilt

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

#296

Post by ZoomZoomZoom »

achierius wrote: post #226
munificent wrote: post #182

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…

> 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…

>I understand that this might sound repulsive on first glance...

First and subsequent.

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

#297

Post by 1659447091 »

mjburgess wrote: post #4

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…

I also find it odd how you came to this conclusion from his writings. However, I first studied Epictetus[0] (I prefer Discourses to the handbook), who inspired Aurelius--thus read Aurelius through the lens of Epictetus. Which is a very different take on Stoicism that has nothing to do with the adjective, stoic as some new aged takes seem to associate. There was also a link on here awhile back to some professors lecture on YouTube, but I can't remember it, that I thought had a really great take on Stoicism and Aurelius. (maybe someone will know it and post)

My short take on Stoicism is about being responsible for your actions, really owning them, plus the understanding needed to be able to do so. Which includes not giving your power of will to others; especially due to social constructs. Worshiping "leaders/authority" tends to make a person believe they are no longer responsible for themselves, the leader is now in ownership of that. There is a gained inner peace (thus joy and lightness) in owning your will. (Here is one of my favorite passages[1])

It's not about having no feeling or joy (being deeply hollow, dissociative, etc)--very much the opposite--or at least the Epictetus teaching. It's also not about giving up and not doing anything or caring, even though that is a lot of people's (wrong, imo) take. It's the opposite, enjoy what you can but don't be so distraught over the things you can not control that you cause self-harm or make it worse. You can not control a region wide wild fire burning your house down, but you can control your response--you can freak out and cause more distress to your family or you can comfort them and find ways to bring people together and rebuild. Your choice, just take responsibility for whatever you choose. That is Stoicism, not having a "stiff upper lip" and pushing through by being a tyrant by default. If you want to chose that okay, then that was what you thought was right for you, but own the consequences of those actions, that part is the Stoicism.

[0] https://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/discourses.html

[1] https://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/discourses.1.one.html#103

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

#298

Post by wolvesechoes »

engels_gibs wrote: post #283
AlexandrB wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every Marxism-derived political system has been terrible for the proletariat. I lived under communism for the first 6 years of my life. What I remember is a tiny apartment, an elevator that reeked of piss, having to store water in buckets because you never knew when it would stop working, and wiping my ass with yesterday's newspaper (which you obviously couldn't flush). Even at my poorest in Canada, I've never known…

In which country did you live? I don't think anyone with even a basic understanding of history can say that communism has been bad for the working class. Really? Communism transformed the Soviet Union into a global superpower in just a few decades. It turned a rural, agrarian society into one that launched the first satellite into space. It provided free housing and education to people who, for generations, couldn't…

And how working class had it better in USSR? How it has it better under CCCP? Or in Cuba?

Working class conditions improved in Scandinavia, UK ruled by Labour Party etc., so in places where explicitly non-marxists forms of socialism took hold.

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

#299

Post by k0tran »

mjburgess wrote: post #4

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…

Seeing how you reply to others trying to explain what stoics actually tried to convey saddens me a little. But the only thing that is left to say is:

"It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already knows." - Epictetus

I wish you all the great and hope that someday you will change you attitude and perspective on stoicism.

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

#300

Post by sd1010 »

markles wrote: post #273
adamtaylor_13 wrote: post #150

Earlier 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…

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 whet…

In the OT, Daniel 12:2-3,13 describes the Judgement day directly.
Post reply on HN