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

301–310 of 338 posts

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

#301

Post by KolenCh »

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…

There are two kinds of Christians, the Bible studying kind, and the one who hearsay. Philosophical arguments like this are handled extensively in the field of (Christian) theology. There are many things many Christians claim nowadays are not biblical. Imagine “physicists” start claiming things that no falsifiable, tested theories in physics attested to. Now do you call them physicists? If there are enough majority of them is doing it, do you say “physicists“ (as a generic term) now believes in so and so? This the kind of situation that’s happening in Christianity. Because, the core believe is anyone can be a Christian (subjected to minimal check such as the basis of their salvation, some also include baptism), unlike in physics you need to be trained and qualified. I’m not saying that’s right or wrong. But I’m pointing out the situation, so that one can understand, for outsiders one would say “Christian believe this or do that”, and for the “insiders” who really study the Bible and trained in theology and know differences between denominations for example, would be completely puzzled and say it is not.

I guess the former focuses on Christian as a social construct and includes whoever claim to be Christian or even influenced by Christian thinking. The latter focuses on Christian as what it is ought to be and knows that all are sinners, including Christians, and I’d fall short of the standards the Bible uphold. Among these Christians, they know that the majority of Christians has gone astray.

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

#302

Post by scantis »

taylorlapeyre wrote: post #289
scantis wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bel…

What is a "late interpretation" in your view? What time period exactly? Job has been read as a story that directly dialogues on the possibility of faith and trust in God in the face of evil for millennia. See The Babylonian Talmud (Bava Batra 15a-16b), Midrash Rabbah (Genesis Rabbah, Exodus Rabbah), Saadia Gaon's commentary on Job, even Maimonides. And on the Christian side, Take Origen, John Chrysostom, and especial…

With late interpretation I mean what is after the fact.

Job has not read his own story.

A late interpretation for me is viewing him, with what he has defined.

If faith would be praying five times a day and avoiding shellfish, his story becomes meaningless.

As you pointed out well, there are many scholars who discussed faith and belief over time. I am not a religious authority, think of me as a simpleton. You may choose their take on the word, it is a late interpretation to me. It could be a whole book on the matter.

The direct translation is reliable.

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

#303

Post by mathgeek »

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…

I read the author's comments as separating out Christianity (the religion that grew from the teachings of Christ) from the actual source of its teachings.

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

#304

Post by worthless-trash »

ilrwbwrkhv wrote: post #272
scandox wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the Cromwellian dictum "Trust in God but keep your powder dry" is the intelligent Christian's attitude to this...

I think most American christianity is actually fake christianity or derived christianity. To understand real christianity, once must read tolstoy.

Most Tolstoyan Christians are actually fake Christians, to understand real Christianity you must read k&r learning c.

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

#305

Post by tasuki »

carlosjobim wrote: post #263
tasuki wrote: post #249

Earlier 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 is the stupidest thing to say to someone who is grieving.

What would you accept to be said? What would be good enough for you? Words are not magical, they are just sounds. In the most important situations in life and in death, words are simply lacking. We as humans haven't been gifted with neither a spoken nor a written language which can encompass all our feelings and meanings. Words cannot even come close. So people have to do with what they have. And you are in no positi…

> What would you accept to be said? What would be good enough for you? Words are not magical, they are just sounds. In the most important situations in life and in death, words are simply lacking.

It's ok not to say anything.

> And you are in no position to judge against somebody who means well.

Oh yes I am. Having good intentions is not enough. I'm sure - in their own worldview - Hitler and Stalin and Mao had good intentions.

When my partner died and I was left to care for our toddler, I learned firsthand about what is and isn't helpful to hear in such situations. The person who said "I know how you feel, I felt awful when my dog died" missed the mark. So would anyone who would say "there is a purpose for everything". No, there was no purpose, and fuck anyone who suggests otherwise.

"God works in mysterious ways", "there is a purpose for everything", and "trust in the Lord" isn't said to comfort the grieving, it's said to comfort the one saying it (and to help them propagate their worldview). Again, fuck that.

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

#306

Post by TaurenHunter »

estarkio wrote: post #256
tasuki wrote: post #249

Earlier 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 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!

What if that child was to become a Hitler otherwise?

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

#307

Post by senko »

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…

> stoicism’s Providential claim that everything in the universe is already perfect and that things which seem bad or unjust are secretly good underneath

Having read a bunch about stoicism, I've never heard/read this claim.

Stoicism (AIUI) is basically "shit happens, learn to deal with it, could be worse". While it provides a coping mechanism, this is a far cry from "things are actually perfect".

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

#308

Post by senko »

TaurenHunter wrote: post #306
estarkio wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

What if that child was to become a Hitler otherwise?

This is the cruelest comment I've seen on HN in a long time.

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

#309

Post by harimau777 »

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…

The version that I've heard from preachers like John Piper seems to be a backlash against the Prosperity Gospel. The argument basically goes:

- The greatest good that God can do is to glorify himself.

- Therefore, when the Bible talks about God working things out for good or about God's provision, what it really means is that God will glorify himself.

I understand the urge to go against the prosperity gospel's idea of "God want's you to be happy so if you have any problems it's because you don't have enough faith". However, I think that argument's like Piper's go too far in the other direction. They basically deny God's provision and in an indirect way say that "every bad thing is actually good".

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

#310

Post by harimau777 »

andrewmutz wrote: post #31
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…

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…

FWIW: My experience with stoicism has been that it's mostly espoused by conservatives as justification for ignoring social justice or by people who perceive themselves to be "tough love" types as a way to dismiss other's suffering.

For that reason, although in theory I think that stoicism could be a useful philosophy, in practice I see it as a cudgel for those who benefit from the status quo.

Post reply on HN