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

How to Be a Stoic (2016)

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 70 posts

Re: How to Be a Stoic (2016)

#41

Post by Thorentis »

manmal wrote: post #39
trabant00 wrote: post #23

The older I get the less wisdom I find in any philosophy that means to teach how we should live and particularly how to avoid pain and unhappiness. The short of it is: nothing is good or bad, but things can be too much or too little. Where the line is depends or circumstances and is different every time. And the correct answer is mostly only available in hindsight if it is at all. Pain is useful. We know physical pai…

Your philosophy sounds to me like the Golden Mean from Aristoteles: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_mean_(philosophy) > The golden mean or golden middle way is the desirable middle between two extremes, one of excess and the other of deficiency. (I do realize the irony of answering such to someone who just declared they don’t find philosophies useful)

I've invariably found that most people who say they don't find philosophy useful, subscribe to a philosophy somebody already described at some point in history. Most people at some point in their lives think they're terribly unique, and then realise they are quite the opposite.

Re: How to Be a Stoic (2016)

#42

Post by manmal »

daseiner1 wrote: post #34

“You desire to LIVE "according to Nature"? Oh, you noble Stoics, what fraud of words! Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power—how COULD you live in accordance with such indifference? To live—is not that just endeavourin…

Nietzsche has struck me as mostly ramblings from a very troubled mind. He had terrible migraines, very often. I suspect some of that agony found its way into his writings. Being controversial doesn’t mean you are being right.

Re: How to Be a Stoic (2016)

#43

Post by ByteJockey »

PradeetPatel wrote: post #10

Is it just me or is stoicism been heavily commercialised over the last few years, along with vipassana meditation. There's absolutely nothing wrong with getting employees to live healthier and more resilient lives, but the skeptic in me thinks that there may be other motives.

Yeah, it really has. I've been calling this "new-age" stoicism. The best way to recognize it seems to be a complete avoidance of the topic of suicide.

The traditional stoic view of suicide (including the classic defense) is quite offensive to modern humanist sensibilities. This gets in the way of monetization.

Re: How to Be a Stoic (2016)

#44

Post by ByteJockey »

dataduck wrote: post #29
vitiral wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be sure to use capital S when talking about the philosophy. The dictionary definition and the philosophy seem to be not actually related, inversely related in many places in fact

That speaks volumes about the people who write the dictionaries.

All of the major dictionaries are descriptivist. They describe how people are using words, they do not try to control how words are used.

Re: How to Be a Stoic (2016)

#45

Post by streamofdigits »

acituan wrote: post #36
trabant00 wrote: post #23

The older I get the less wisdom I find in any philosophy that means to teach how we should live and particularly how to avoid pain and unhappiness. The short of it is: nothing is good or bad, but things can be too much or too little. Where the line is depends or circumstances and is different every time. And the correct answer is mostly only available in hindsight if it is at all. Pain is useful. We know physical pai…

> The older I get the less wisdom I find in any philosophy that means to teach how we should live and particularly how to avoid pain and unhappiness. There are two limitations with this proposition. First; most of the useful "philosophies", by which you mean schools of philosophies, and by that we actually mean "wisdom traditions", have already been incorporated into many aspects of the mainstream culture that they a…

I've come to appreciate the enduring importance of "wisdom traditions" after (at some random time) seeking the etymology of Ubuntu (the operating system). The concept of humans acquiring their humanity through others resonated deeply despite coming from an alien to me culture.

Re: How to Be a Stoic (2016)

#46

Post by mycologos »

trabant00 wrote: post #23

The older I get the less wisdom I find in any philosophy that means to teach how we should live and particularly how to avoid pain and unhappiness. The short of it is: nothing is good or bad, but things can be too much or too little. Where the line is depends or circumstances and is different every time. And the correct answer is mostly only available in hindsight if it is at all. Pain is useful. We know physical pai…

> Pain is useful.

There's a line I like from (of all people) Jerry Seinfeld, that's something like "pain is the feeling of truth rushing in". That's not always true, some people experience pain disconnected from any meaning, but a lot of times it is.

Re: How to Be a Stoic (2016)

#47

Post by stared »

trabant00 wrote: post #23

The older I get the less wisdom I find in any philosophy that means to teach how we should live and particularly how to avoid pain and unhappiness. The short of it is: nothing is good or bad, but things can be too much or too little. Where the line is depends or circumstances and is different every time. And the correct answer is mostly only available in hindsight if it is at all. Pain is useful. We know physical pai…

My take on stoicism is not that you need to give up desires. You can have those, follow them. However, it works as long as you don't fight with factors you have no control over.

(Though, from the list "reputation" is the trickiest one. Reputation is precisely what OTHERS think about you; you have a limited control of that.)

Re: How to Be a Stoic (2016)

#48

Post by tugberkk »

hpoe wrote: post #27
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #19

Stoicism always reminds me of the Disillusioned Sensible Man from CS Lewis’ Mere Christianity: > (2) The Way of the Disillusioned "Sensible Man."—He soon decides that the whole thing was moonshine. "Of course," he says, "one feels like that when one's young. But by the time you get to my age you've given up chasing the rainbow's end." And so he settles down and learns not to expect too much and represses the part of…

See that is an interesting point I've discovered while learning about stocism, and I find the same line of thought from what I understand of Buddhism. It seems that they are focused on taking away desires, just stop wanting things so much, stop trying to avoid pain and seek after pleasure. Which I agree in large part much of the misery we encounter in our daily life seems to stem from failure to adequately control ou…

Stoicism is actually similar to Buddhism in some ways. However, it is about being content. Rich means that you don't want anything else other than you own. This is being content. Stoics say that you have your mind and "reason"; which is the most important thing you can own. Therefore, why do you want some other things? Especially, if its not in your control.

Re: How to Be a Stoic (2016)

#49

Post by jedimastert »

ejolto wrote: post #26
trabant00 wrote: post #23

The older I get the less wisdom I find in any philosophy that means to teach how we should live and particularly how to avoid pain and unhappiness. The short of it is: nothing is good or bad, but things can be too much or too little. Where the line is depends or circumstances and is different every time. And the correct answer is mostly only available in hindsight if it is at all. Pain is useful. We know physical pai…

> The short of it is: nothing is good or bad, but things can be too much or too little. Where the line is depends or circumstances and is different every time. And the correct answer is mostly only available in hindsight if it is at all. That sounds like a very stoic point of view, reminds me of Marcus Aurelius's meditations. It's worth a read.

> That sounds like a very stoic point of view

I agree, it really does sound like an argument for stoicism.

Re: How to Be a Stoic (2016)

#50

Post by mkane848 »

Thorentis wrote: post #41
manmal wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your philosophy sounds to me like the Golden Mean from Aristoteles: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_mean_(philosophy) > The golden mean or golden middle way is the desirable middle between two extremes, one of excess and the other of deficiency. (I do realize the irony of answering such to someone who just declared they don’t find philosophies useful)

I've invariably found that most people who say they don't find philosophy useful, subscribe to a philosophy somebody already described at some point in history. Most people at some point in their lives think they're terribly unique, and then realise they are quite the opposite.

I don't think that's what OP is doing at all, you're just setting up a dunk for yourself. Congrats on saying "Simpsons did it".
Post reply on HN