How to Be a Stoic • Hacker News Board

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#61

Post by Baeocystin » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 1:37 PM UTC

osti wrote: post #48

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 endeavorin…

I admire many aspects of the stoic outlook, but Nietzsche's criticism is delightfully needle-sharp.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#62

Post by hartator » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 1:40 PM UTC

I can't recommend enough "A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy" by Irvine, William B.

I am 2/3 into it, maybe one of the best philosophy book I've ever read.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#63

Post by gaoshan » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 1:45 PM UTC

0x445442 wrote: post #53

Havoc wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Is there someone among you HNers who has retained a positive outlook by believing that the universe is a bleak, chaotic place with no intrinsic meaning to the things happening in it? Yep. Though I'd suggest you take a closer look at that sentence of yours. Specifically the "bleak, chaotic" part. That's already a very negative judgement and in contradiction with the neutral "no intrinsic meaning" part. >I have found…

I'd suggest what keeps man from eating man, on the scale that lions eat zebras, is a general belief in a authority higher than man.

You should ask, "what keeps lions from eating lions" if you want to go that route and then see what happens to your higher authority argument.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#64

Post by olavk » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 1:47 PM UTC

manmal wrote: post #41

olavk wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bone cancer in children - if there exist an almighty sentient God, then he is erratic and malicious. The polytheistic concept of gods is actually more realistic (better explains reality) in that there are multiple gods with different agendas and morals acting. In polytheism the universe is not chaotic and meaningless - things to not happen at random, but because the gods willed it. But the gods does not always act fo…

You actually can construct reasonings in which bone cancer in children might serve some greater good, though such reasonings are very painful to hear for people remotely affected, so I won't try that. I know that I'm stepping on thin ice here, but: My son does not want his teeth brushed. He absolutely hates it, because he does not yet understand that this pain is way lesser than the pain and treatment of tooth decay.…

Yeah you can device such a reasoning - theologians from monotheistic religions do that. I guess for some this is comforting. It is certainly a bleak world where anybody can be hit by such a tragedy without any higher reason or justice. I just happen to find your viewpoint ("really, its for their own good") much more bleak and horrible.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#65

Post by hartator » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 1:49 PM UTC

Kudos for writing about Stoicism. However, I think it's pretty weak article. No mentions of negative visualization or Seneca while both are roots of the Stoic philosophy.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#66

Post by forthefuture » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 1:51 PM UTC

olavk wrote: post #57

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your first statement is a pretty classic and naive position. For me at 8 years or so I rendered the objection of "pain" in terms of volcanoes. The standard, and again naive, rejoinder in mainstream Christian theology is that God had a pattern for the World that didn't include such types of pain and destruction but that man chose not to follow God's plan (as allegorised in "The Fall" in Genesis). Thus we chose to go i…

So God inflicted leprocy on humanity because otherwise we wouldn't be able to feel genuine love? And not buying this makes you "naive"?

Thinking that framing God as a contradiction will convince people not to believe in it is naive.

People have been saying the same things for 2,000 years. The only development is that we can say it's been longer now.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#67

Post by jwdunne » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 1:53 PM UTC

What is perhaps most interesting about stoicism is how it influenced cognitive therapy and CBT in a big way. These forms of therapy, along with derivatives that integrate practical ideas from Buddhism such as DBT and radical acceptance therapy, have been seen to perform as well as medication and in some cases providing longer term improvements.

I think both the stoics and Buddhism were definitely on to something.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#68

Post by nurettin » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 1:58 PM UTC

manmal wrote: post #45

nurettin wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evil god is great and no god is bleak? I'd think the opposite.

Evilness/Goodness depends on what utility function you ascribe to god. If you define god's utility function as "avoid all pain in living organisms", then it's indeed an evil or non-cooperative god or universe. I personally can deal with pain (remember, suffering is optional).

So you can deal with pain, but you simply can't bear the non-existence of the pain-giver.

Sounds like a fetish.

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#69

Post by Pamar » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 2:01 PM UTC

0x445442 wrote: post #53

Havoc wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Is there someone among you HNers who has retained a positive outlook by believing that the universe is a bleak, chaotic place with no intrinsic meaning to the things happening in it? Yep. Though I'd suggest you take a closer look at that sentence of yours. Specifically the "bleak, chaotic" part. That's already a very negative judgement and in contradiction with the neutral "no intrinsic meaning" part. >I have found…

I'd suggest what keeps man from eating man, on the scale that lions eat zebras, is a general belief in a authority higher than man.

Interestingly enough, this has been scientifically investigated - I posted about this yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13724476

Re: How to Be a Stoic

#70

Post by olavk » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 2:02 PM UTC

0x445442 wrote: post #55

olavk wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bone cancer in children - if there exist an almighty sentient God, then he is erratic and malicious. The polytheistic concept of gods is actually more realistic (better explains reality) in that there are multiple gods with different agendas and morals acting. In polytheism the universe is not chaotic and meaningless - things to not happen at random, but because the gods willed it. But the gods does not always act fo…

My beliefs here, take with grain of salt... If something bad happens to you it is not because God wants you to suffer but because God has given evil dominion over this place in order to facilitate free will and choice. God wants to be reconciled with every person but also wants that reconciliation to be chosen and not coerced. The suffering of innocents is just an extension of this idea.

Yes and that line of reasoning works as long as you don't think to deeply about the logic of it. But you cant really escape the fundamental paradox of a God which is both almighty and benevolent. All monotheistic religions have to struggle with this.

The Book of Job in the Bible for example posits that God is almighty but not at all fair. He basically causes Job to suffer on a whim. Not out of some kind of theological necessity, but simply as a cruel experiment. There is no paradox here, because there is no claim that God is always just and benevolent.