How to Be a Stoic (2016) • Hacker News Board

Re: How to Be a Stoic (2016)

#51

Post by trabant00 » Wed, Jun 16, 2021, 1:03 PM UTC

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)

Moderation, avoiding extremes, yin and yang etc are core ideas in a lot of philosophies. I am well aware of that.

While I can not be completely exhaustive in HN comment, I did point out that my issue is with having a philosophy that predetermines in a generalized way where that golden middle way is. And the difference between seeing it in hindsight and trying to predict it.

I do not find philosophies useless, just not recipes for living your life like the author of the article tries.

Re: How to Be a Stoic (2016)

#52

Post by watwut » Wed, Jun 16, 2021, 1:08 PM UTC

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.

He is not saying he is unique. He is saying that he don't find value in studying philosophy or what someone long ago says about how he should live.

That is not nearly the same as thinking you are terribly unique.

Re: How to Be a Stoic (2016)

#53

Post by trabant00 » Wed, Jun 16, 2021, 1:09 PM UTC

michaelgrafl wrote: post #28

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…

Part of the problem might be that we didn't evolve to live in groups of people as big as in big cities, so getting angry with strangers in the streets might be the result of not being adapted to that environment. Now that I think of it, I guess most neuroses nowadays stems from environmental changes we weren't able to adapt to quickly enough (global communication, oversaturation from violent and sexual imagery, etc.)…

I think it's the density rather than the absolute size of population in cities.

Re: How to Be a Stoic (2016)

#54

Post by watwut » Wed, Jun 16, 2021, 1:13 PM UTC

wruza wrote: post #30

mindhash wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My dad lived in a small town in India for most of his life. When I come across stoicism and read about it, I realized he has been living like a stoic his whole life. His way of approaching life is so aligned with the concept. And yet he has never read or heard about Epicteus. I have been reading a lot of books about philosophy lately, but I realise the most you can learn is from people around you. The books are often…

people who vent out on the spot are less likely to be stressful (less stress harmone) Interesting if that study checked the environment in each case. If you vent out at endless taxi drivers, real estate agents, shop salesmen or something like that, wouldn’t it only make you constantly angry? Psychologists say that we have to express, not exactly vent out. Expressing emotions is telling others how you feel, so they co…

> Psychologists say that we have to express, not exactly vent out. Expressing emotions is telling others how you feel, so they could adjust their behavior or attitude accordingly. In 90% of cases, words about what you feel are enough.

No, that is not whole of it. Psychologists don't say you should speak purely to make other people what you want. And also, talking about how you feel don't work all that great in achieving what you want.

They promote activities like journaling or talk to process what is in your mind and to manage own mind. So you end up expressing unprocessed ideas, feelings, thoughts and emotions. You do it for yourself.

Re: How to Be a Stoic (2016)

#55

Post by tartoran » Wed, Jun 16, 2021, 1:37 PM UTC

trabant00 wrote: post #53

michaelgrafl wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the problem might be that we didn't evolve to live in groups of people as big as in big cities, so getting angry with strangers in the streets might be the result of not being adapted to that environment. Now that I think of it, I guess most neuroses nowadays stems from environmental changes we weren't able to adapt to quickly enough (global communication, oversaturation from violent and sexual imagery, etc.)…

I think it's the density rather than the absolute size of population in cities.

Big cities tend to have high density. Sure, if density lowered so would the stress levels but cities make use of higher density to make certain things such as public transportation as well as other types of businesses viable which in turn makes the proposition of living in cities more attractive.

Re: How to Be a Stoic (2016)

#56

Post by trabant00 » Wed, Jun 16, 2021, 1:41 PM UTC

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…

> If the local optimal point was only available in hindsight though, we couldn't have survived as a species thus far

We didn't survive as a species thanks to life guiding philosophy or in general thanks to a conscious thinking process in which we tried to predict the future. When even our greatest people tried to do that it more often resulted in unpredicted results than not.

I can make a case for believing we can though. It is a most powerful motivator for action and association. So maybe the lesson is don't have a philosophy for yourself but have one for your would be followers?

Re: How to Be a Stoic (2016)

#57

Post by fidesomnes » Wed, Jun 16, 2021, 1:43 PM UTC

manmal wrote: post #42

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.

Your lack of understanding is almost as profound as your faux medical expertise.

Re: How to Be a Stoic (2016)

#58

Post by trabant00 » Wed, Jun 16, 2021, 1:48 PM UTC

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.

Thankfully somebody did the research for me, I just had the vague knowledge that his actions where not exactly matching his writing.

https://marcusaureliusmeditations.weebly.com/index.html

The case can be made that he mostly wrote what he thought of as ideal and how we would like to see himself, but often failed to apply it in practice because as I propose life is more complex than any particular philosophy.

Re: How to Be a Stoic (2016)

#59

Post by acituan » Wed, Jun 16, 2021, 3:15 PM UTC

trabant00 wrote: post #56

acituan wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> If the local optimal point was only available in hindsight though, we couldn't have survived as a species thus far We didn't survive as a species thanks to life guiding philosophy or in general thanks to a conscious thinking process in which we tried to predict the future. When even our greatest people tried to do that it more often resulted in unpredicted results than not. I can make a case for believing we can th…

> We didn't survive as a species thanks to life guiding philosophy or in general thanks to a conscious thinking process in which we tried to predict the future

You couldn't be more wrong. Consciousness, inferential thinking, symbolic processing, they are all selected because they give a tremendous adaptive advantage. To claim otherwise would be at best to claim they are mere spandrels.

> I can make a case for believing we can though. It is a most powerful motivator for action and association.

Believing we have agency where we don't is actually the most powerful reason for burnout and depression. Stoicism gives a corrective suggestion; engage in a questioning process in order not to overestimate your agency, but also not to underestimate it; don't forgo the predictive power you do have. It calls you to reframe your life's problems in a way where you salience the information about the degree of agency you might or might not have. Notice how there is no ready made answers for you to consume.

> So maybe the lesson is don't have a philosophy for yourself but have one for your would be followers?

I think you're conflating philosophy with indoctrination or dogma. Philosophy literally means love of wisdom. Wisdom is not a collection of propositions or assertions, it is roughly a hyper-parameter tuning process of our heuristics. One does not become wise, because it is not a terminal position. One aspires to cultivate wisdom, i.e. to work on their hyper-parameters. Philosophy is the dedication to this process.

Re: How to Be a Stoic (2016)

#60

Post by acoard » Wed, Jun 16, 2021, 3:59 PM UTC

trabant00 wrote: post #58

ejolto wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Thankfully somebody did the research for me, I just had the vague knowledge that his actions where not exactly matching his writing. https://marcusaureliusmeditations.weebly.com/index.html The case can be made that he mostly wrote what he thought of as ideal and how we would like to see himself, but often failed to apply it in practice because as I propose life is more complex than any particular philosophy.

He was a complicated man. On the one hand, he liked to sleep on the floor without finery, and had to be told to stop because he's the Emperor. On the other hand, he basically waged a war of genocide against the German tribes. He clearly took personal development really seriously, but, like... genocide.

I've read him extensively and multiple translations. Your original post is strongly stoic, although the "tune out to it all and just live a good life" is a bit more Epicurean[0].

Stoicism is not about being a neutral perfectly calm emotionless robot. Stoicism is recognizing that you ultimately can't control the world, you can just control your (re)actions. The entire ethical system stems from that realization. Death or dying isn't "bad", it's just "not preferred", because the only good and bad things centre around things you can control. Everything else is just life. Roll with it.

(Personally, I'm with you though. I've learnt to eschew the labels and just lead a common sense life; but I do pick and choose from the valuable ethical systems over time.)

[0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epicurus/