Western philosophy is so depressing. Unnecessarily.
[deleted]
Self-help gets philosophical
91–100 of 112 posts
Re: Self-help gets philosophical
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> His stoicism was mostly turned outward.
Huh? How so? In most of his writings, he's introspecting. They're basically reflections about himself and his own thoughts about things. I don't recall a passage where he's focused on anything other than internal dialogue (not saying they don't exist, but none are coming to mind).
> He believed that the powerless man should accept his place below the powerful man.
Maybe, but so did everyone else. Although, we do have Diogenes the Cynic, who heavily inspired the founding of Stoicism. Diogenes... The stories about him are quite intense. Feel free to look them up. In short, he mocked social conventions, wealth, and so-called "power".
> I didn't even get 2 pages[...]
In the first two pages, Marcus wrote about the good qualities of people throughout his life e.g. his teachers, parents, etc. Did you actually read it?
Re: Self-help gets philosophical
#93Every biology textbook I've ever read tells us the purpose of life in plain black and white: to reproduce. If you have children, especially a lot of children, you will see the purpose of life.
This assertion relies a bit much on overloading the definition of “life”, and I for one care more about spreading my ideas than my genes.
Re: Self-help gets philosophical
#94Earlier 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.…
Fair enough, but I've always interpreted it differently. I don't view it as "punting" so much as acknowledging what the hard part is. But I agree that "you can't control others, you can only control your response to them" is certainly the rule.
I use the prayer as a framework when I have to take a mental break and find the discernment between a situation I truly can't change and one I can influence (or, like you pointed out, a response you can control).
Re: Self-help gets philosophical
#95I was attracted to Stoicism for a long time and still believe it has some good ideas, e.g. recognizing what you cannot control and not letting those things destabilize you easily. But overall I find it a pretty depressing philosophy. I’m sure that is a reflection of me, but what I’ve found much more compelling (as it leaves me actually feeling positive about life rather than indifferent) is absurdism. In particular, the idea that “one must imagine Sisyphus happy” profoundly changed how I approach and enjoy life.
Re: Self-help gets philosophical
#96I 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.
Marcus Aurelius was an emperor. Presumably you have less control over your life and other people than he did.
Re: Self-help gets philosophical
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 injus…
I put "frustration" in there for a reason. There are situations that are nobody's fault, which we shrug about. Then there are other situations that are nobody's fault, about which we think "something should be done", even though it's nobody's particular duty to fix the problem. That lingering frustration is a moral opinion. It's informed by expectations and realism, which it is often beyond our grasp to even determine accurately.
Re: Self-help gets philosophical
#98Every biology textbook I've ever read tells us the purpose of life in plain black and white: to reproduce. If you have children, especially a lot of children, you will see the purpose of life.
This assertion relies a bit much on overloading the definition of “life”, and I for one care more about spreading my ideas than my genes.
Why?
Re: Self-help gets philosophical
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not endorsing victimhood or saying that Bangladesh is poor because the US is rich. It was badly phrased if that is how it reads, for that I apologize. I'm saying the US does what it can to keep itself richer than other countries all around the globe by immoral means. It is not unique in this. This is not the only reason the US is rich or the only reason any other is not. I'm also saying that this is a really bad…
The US hasn't done anything to prevent Bangladesh from being as rich as, let's say, Singapore. Rather the opposite.
With respect to Bangladesh specifically, the U.S. has helped much more than it has hurt.