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

71–80 of 338 posts

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

#71

Post by pj_mukh »

betenoire wrote: post #61
pj_mukh wrote: post #14

"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" What did I miss? Does Stoicism claim everything in the universe is already perfect? That seems like a bold (counter-intuitive) c…

"perfect" is a weird word to use in stoicism, but I do think it can be used to justify that things "are the way they are" and shrug it off with some visualization.

I always saw Stoicism as “things around you are going to be really screwed up and panicking about it will make it worse”

The first part of that sentence is opposite to what the author here suggests.

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

#72

Post by oramit »

It's been interesting to watch and experience Techbros jump on different philosophical/religious trends over the years. Post 9/11 through the Great Financial Crisis New Atheism was all the rage. Once the tech boom was in full swing Stoicism became the dominant ideology.

Now, post Covid I see a hard pivot towards Christianity, but importantly, "traditional" forms of it. Protestant sects are being ignored and Catholicism, or if you are really intense, Orthodoxy seems to be in vogue.

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

#73

Post by mjburgess »

codexb wrote: post #67
mjburgess wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 think your last example demonstrates the value of stoicism. In many cases, our untrained emotional response to life prevents us from achieving more or enjoying life. Instead of screaming, you could spend the time enjoying your loved ones for as long as possible. You could try to find a way to stop the plane from falling or work on bracing yourself to survive the impact. Stoicism is a realizing that many of our inst…

I suspect that screaming at a person who has done you wrong, in the vast majority of cases, has both the intended effect and a desirable one.

If you are in an elite position of leadership, and otherwise have more Machiavellian options, then you can always try to calculate revenge instead -- or forgive endlessly and be exploited.

I'd say in the majority of cases, for most adult people with some life experience, shouting when you want to shout is probably a healthy thing.

Though there are always cases of those who shout at the wrong people (displaced agression), or have to little life experience or no composure at all -- I dont think these are any where near the majority of cases. It's very rare. Though a perpetually (literally,) adolescent internet might make it seem so.

Almost no one ever shouts at me, though I'm very shoutable-at.

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

#74

Post by bko »

mjburgess wrote: post #11
bko wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Because you're a social animal in a social world, whose social action creates and modifies that world. Since you are a body, in an environment, with a psychology -- your actions have an effect upon the world. The invitation to dissociate and mute your social emotions is an invitation to keep everything as-it-is.

So if I'm fortunate and blessed with wealth, I should feel guilty and be vocal about my guilt. So I make my life worse off and that of the people around me. People with heavy burden of guilt are often insufferable. And this will somehow make the world better off?

Notice these people making these arguments never argue for voluntary charitable giving which is actually encouraged by stoic philosophy as is promoting justice.

But the most important thing to some people is the signaling and guilt associated with any gift.

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

#75

Post by codexb »

skwee357 wrote: post #18
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…

My guess why Aurelius is considered as the face of stoicism is due to the fact he was an emperor/powerful man. I doubt that the twisted way in which stoicism is viewed today would benefit from selling it as a philosophy of Zeno, who was a foreigner. What I mean by that is that stoicism in its modern iteration seems a brosphere/manosphere thing that will help you to become rich/powerful/successful/buy a lambo, while i…

I think it's just one of the few therapeutic skills that are generally offered to men and that genuinely considers the problems that men face.

The problems and issues that men face are largely ignored or downplayed compared with women and there's little offered to men in dealing with it. The traditional outlets like men-only clubs and spaces have been torn down in the name of equality. In that environment, literally anything at all that attempts to address the problems men face will become popular among men.

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

#76

Post by bigstrat2003 »

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…

> 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.

Not to sound flippant, but that strikes me as absurd. You don't gain anything by that. You're going to be just as dead, but with a lot of suffering in your final moments that didn't need to happen. It's a pure negative thing, not a virtue.

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

#77

Post by tasty_freeze »

adamnemecek wrote: post #2

I wonder what caused the current obsession with stoicism. It seems vacant.

I don't follow Tim Ferriss, but I heard him interviewed on a podcast I sometimes listen to (I forget which) and Ferris said he reads MA's writings at least yearly and has done so for decades, and credited it with helping him with his depression and other issues. I got the impression he mentions it and advocates that everyone should study them as well. The interviewer was equally enthusiastic about MA.

Considering the popularity of Ferriss, he is probably part of the reason. I suspect the type of people who read his books (eg the 4 hour work week) probably are into it too as it is a macho stance to take. Who the hell thinks it is good to sleep on a stone floor in order to toughen your mind so you don't get too attached to comforts? My philosophy is I'll deal with suffering when it comes, and not practice before then to get good at it.

It reminds me of an interview many years ago with Jim Rose, who put on a traveling sideshow circus. There were no tricks -- the performs just did strange, painful things for entertainment. One of his routines was his wife would throw darts, using Rose's back as the dartboard. The interviewer asked, "Do you practice this?" He replied something like, "Hell no! It hurts! I did it once to see if I could do it, but after that I only do it for the show, where I get paid!"

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

#78

Post by Spooky23 »

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…

Philosophies are frameworks that help us make sense of the world. We can adopt them in ways that are maladjusted.

People with power often adopt stoic thinking as the nature of power comes with stresses that are difficult to manage. I’ve wielded power at a scale that was nothing like a president or ceo, but way beyond what the typical person experiences. It’s hard, and whatever you do, someone has a bad outcome in many cases.

Most people would characterize Marcus Aurelius or George Washington as wise rulers. They embraced stoicism. Yet Mussolini and Robespierre also identified as stoic-ish as well, and most people would objectively look at them with a harsher light.

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

#79

Post by nkassis »

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

The guilt isn't due to the simple fact of being prosperous it's more about the prioritization of self-interest over that of a win-win option that helps the broader good.

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

#80

Post by bambax »

> But for all Seneca’s powerful advice about the big picture and the meaninglessness of wealth, he was also a slave-owner who, when alerted that his male slaves were sexually abusing his female slaves, set up a brothel in his estate so he could make his male slaves pay him for the privilege of abusing his female slaves–not quite the behavior we imagine when Seneca says money is meaningless and all living beings are sacred.

It could be argued that this policy was simply reasonable: the only alternatives being to either do nothing, or set up a police force to prevent and/or punish abuse.

Also, not sure if Seneca really believed "all living beings [were] sacred"; he despised games of gladiators because he thought the spectacles were vulgar and appealed to lower instincts, but he never expressed any form of compassion for the gladiators themselves.

Anyway, I knew that Seneca was the richest Roman in his time (and perhaps, of all times), but didn't hear that story before. Would like to know more. (Did slaves have money to spend?)

Post reply on HN