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

Self-help gets philosophical

thedriftmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 112 posts

Re: Self-help gets philosophical

#81

Post by card_zero »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #24
maCDzP wrote: post #10

I used to think stoicism was great. But now I think that it’s not so great. In retrospect I should have focused on changing my situation in stead of learning to live with it. Compared to Aurelius - I am not living around 0 bc - in today’s world I can change a lot of things.

Accepting the things that you cannot change does not mean assume you cannot change things then accept it. It’s predicated on an accurate assessment of what you can and cannot change. In my view such acceptance is for optimizing application of effort by not wasting effort on things that actually cannot be changed. “Don’t go tilting at windmills”

I was thinking about the meaning of "acceptance" recently. It means you feel some injustice or frustration about something. Morally, you think the problem should be fixed, but strategically you think you shouldn't try.

Everything we do has limits and obstacles. If you don't feel frustrated, then that's a completely ordinary situation and there's no point in highlighting your "acceptance", is there?

I suppose in tech terms it could be equivalent to "won't fix", but such matters should be swiftly forgotten. If you're experiencing ongoing acceptance, consciously, that's suboptimal and implies you'd still be right to complain.

Thus recommending acceptance to somebody is recommending defeat. The term acceptance entails bottled-up frustration or injustice. It may still be strategically right, but it's a twisted, contingent choice.

Re: Self-help gets philosophical

#82

Post by wiseowise »

zkmon wrote: post #35

Books are same as TV shows - more about sounding weird to catch the fish (audience). I don't read any of those self-help books or seemingly philosophical notes. The Western world has invented too much of self-awareness and social reflection. People smile too much, smile at strangers, worry about social acceptance, worry about self, go crazy about all thing cosmetic in life and at work. You don't need to think too muc…

> You don't need to think too much about anything or have too much of self-awareness. Just be real, with neutral expression, relaxed, not emotional etc.

“What a creep”

“Is everything alright?”

“Why are you so gloomy all the time?”

It’s easy to not care about others opinion when your life wellbeing doesn’t depend on it, for most people it’s not a luxury they can afford.

Re: Self-help gets philosophical

#83

Post by ImPleadThe5th »

unpopularopp wrote: post #42
HEmanZ wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“ People smile too much, smile at strangers…” How dare they.

If you are american you'll probably never notice how off-putting is the american niceness. And it's not natural if you ever traveled and seen the world a little bit.

I can tell you _haven't_ meaningfully traveled a lot because you're making assertions about "correctness" on cultural differences.

Some places smile, some don't. That's all fine. But thinking your way is the one right way is kind of sad.

Re: Self-help gets philosophical

#84

Post by rolandog »

maCDzP wrote: post #10

I used to think stoicism was great. But now I think that it’s not so great. In retrospect I should have focused on changing my situation in stead of learning to live with it. Compared to Aurelius - I am not living around 0 bc - in today’s world I can change a lot of things.

Totally agreed. There's a great "Philosophize This!" episode I recently listened to precisely about this topic [0].

[0]: "Episode #237 ... The Stoics Are Wrong - Nietzche, Schopenhauer" https://www.philosophizethis.org/podcast/h48mld6lelcfrts-c55...>

Re: Self-help gets philosophical

#85

Post by delusional »

grey-area wrote: post #25
maCDzP wrote: post #10

I used to think stoicism was great. But now I think that it’s not so great. In retrospect I should have focused on changing my situation in stead of learning to live with it. Compared to Aurelius - I am not living around 0 bc - in today’s world I can change a lot of things.

You will never have as much power as Aurelius. Why was he nevertheless a stoic?

His stoicism was mostly turned outward. He believed that the powerless man should accept his place below the powerful man. That submission was not shameful for the man born to submit, and that he ought to submit willingly. Stoicism does not bind the powerful, only the powerless.

I didn't even get 2 pages I to meditations before I could tell it was the philosophy of a very powerful man.

Re: Self-help gets philosophical

#86

Post by el_jay »

zkmon wrote: post #35

Books are same as TV shows - more about sounding weird to catch the fish (audience). I don't read any of those self-help books or seemingly philosophical notes. The Western world has invented too much of self-awareness and social reflection. People smile too much, smile at strangers, worry about social acceptance, worry about self, go crazy about all thing cosmetic in life and at work. You don't need to think too muc…

Expectations do not spring sui generis into hearts and minds. I don’t know about you, but AFAICT approximately sane and rational folks (ha! Ha!) at least try to derive their expectations from reality.

When most people’s reality is substantially human-defined and abstracted from nature - including a global advertising industry exists to create mass expectations, of economic significance for its clients, often enough to the detriment of their target markets - you can absolutely point the finger at “reality” for pissing on your leg while varieties of Stoic, Buddhist, and HN poster tell you it’s raining.

It’s good to start with ourselves when trying to create change, as that is where the locus of control should lie… but sometimes “reality” is absolutely the reasonable and proximate cause of negative emotion. Saying otherwise feels like anticipatory victim-blaming.

Re: Self-help gets philosophical

#87

Post by cjbgkagh »

card_zero wrote: post #81
cjbgkagh wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accepting the things that you cannot change does not mean assume you cannot change things then accept it. It’s predicated on an accurate assessment of what you can and cannot change. In my view such acceptance is for optimizing application of effort by not wasting effort on things that actually cannot be changed. “Don’t go tilting at windmills”

I was thinking about the meaning of "acceptance" recently. It means you feel some injustice or frustration about something. Morally, you think the problem should be fixed, but strategically you think you shouldn't try. Everything we do has limits and obstacles. If you don't feel frustrated, then that's a completely ordinary situation and there's no point in highlighting your "acceptance", is there? I suppose in tech…

No moral or injustice component needed.

I have genetic chronic fatigue and I’m limited in what I can do about it, there is a component of making peace with loss, a radical acceptance of one’s own situation. And there is a component of extreme experimentation, I have done just about all that can be done about it. I have to give up on my dreams of athleticism. Life isn’t fair, it’s life, but I wouldn’t call it an injustice. I think the modern conflation is part of making the personal political.

Re: Self-help gets philosophical

#89

Post by FloorEgg »

an0malous wrote: post #63
FloorEgg wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't sound like stoicism to me. At its core stoicism is about having the best possible judgement and taking the best possible actions. Sometimes acting makes a situation worse and so patience or restraint are what's best. It seems you've confused this situational wisdom with a universal principle. Everything I've learned about stoicism has taught me to not waste energy on things I can't control so that I can…

This is why the OP calls pop-Stoicism vacuous. It isn't really helpful to know you should always take the best action, or not waste energy on things you can't control. The challenge is knowing what the best action is, or what is or isn't in your control.

What do you mean by OP?

The comment I responded to didn't refer to pop stoicism or use the word vacuous. The word vacuous also didn't appear in the article.

Stoicism is the study and reflection of what is and isn't in our control and what are virtues. It doesn't just stop at declaring the goal, it's literally the practice of pursuing the goal.

Both you and the comment I replied to seem like opinions based on a very shallow understanding of stoicism.

Re: Self-help gets philosophical

#90

Post by amelius »

Spivak wrote: post #75
scruple wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Serenity Prayer has been around for about 100 years now. I find myself repeating it fairly often, especially now that I've got young children.

This prayer bothers me because it punts the "hard part" to the Lord when it doesn't need to. The exact same sentiment which has been rediscovered over and over for at least 2000 years and is far more actionable is, "you can't control others*, you can only control your response to them." It gives you a blueprint of what kinds of things you can expect to be able to change and the limitations you'll face in the attempt.…

> "you can't control others*, you can only control your response to them."

Like it or not, but you __can__ control others. This is what advertising is based on, for example.

Post reply on HN