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

Indifference is a power (2015)

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 241 posts

Re: Indifference is a power (2015)

#91

Post by svat »

everdrive wrote: post #11

Actual stoicism is kind of darkly funny. Here's a word-for-word (translated, of course) excerpt from Epictetus: "It's possible to understand what nature wants from situations where we're no different from other people. For example, when a slave breaks someone else's cup we're instantly ready to say 'These things happen.' So when it's a cup of yours that gets broken, appreciate that you have the same attitude as when…

Here are some other translations of that passage (Enchiridion 26): https://enchiridion.tasuki.org/display:Code:e,ec,twh,twr,gl,...

- The first part says: if you shrug off someone else's cup being broken as just an accident, you should also do the same when yours gets broken.

- Then he clearly says “Apply now the same principle to the matters of greater importance.”

- The last part says that if you respond to someone else's bereavement with platitudes like “Such is the lot of man” or “This is an accident of mortality” (this does not preclude some amount of sympathy and compassion preceding those statements!), then you should respond the same to yours, rather than thinking of yourself as uniquely wretched and unfortunate.

The main point is about being consistent in how you view others' fate and yours: not that you should care equally about someone's wife and yours (or that you should be indifferent to either), just that the story you tell about life and fortune should be the same.

[He's also obviously distinguishing the cup situation (a simple everyday thing where the principle is easy to see and follow, given as an establishing example) from the wife situation (a situation where the principle is harder to apply), by saying “greater things” / “higher matters” / “matters of greater importance”.]

Re: Indifference is a power (2015)

#92

Post by speak_plainly »

If Socratic philosophy is the greatest threat to state power, Stoicism is the framework for mass compliance. It's a psychological strategy for emotional management that replaces the traditional goals of inquiry. This system encourages individuals to obey authority and limit their emotional range to reach a state of internal comfort. This objective discourages the act of questioning. In this regard, it functions as an anti-philosophy.

The modern interest in Stoicism in my opinion is a move toward a secular version of the Christian experience. Modern Stoicism retains the Christian emphasis on submission and endurance while ignoring the superstitious elements inherent in Stoic physics, such as providential fatalism.

If your objective is to maintain a state of functioning passivity, Stoicism is the effective solution (but I wouldn't recommend it).

Re: Indifference is a power (2015)

#93

Post by alphazard »

A lot of comments here use this metaphor of emotions as things that flow from a source, and need to be expressed or they will accumulate and explode. I think this can be traced to pop-psychology bullshit, and there isn't any neuroscientific basis backing it up. It seems like wishful thinking by people who like expressing their emotions to others and want to justify their spend on therapists, or their occasional emotional outbursts.

Instead, the evidence points to the brain building habits around emotions and their regulation the same way it builds habits around everything else. If you practice not feeling emotions or becoming identified with them, then that habit will continue and they will become easier to not feel. There is not a debt to be paid, or a buildup to be released.

This is often framed in different ways, mediators talk about "creating distance" and "noticing but not indulging". The timeless grug-brain approach is "ignoring", described by emotional people as "bottling up". These are different ways to frame the same phenomenon, which is that the brain does what it has practiced.

Re: Indifference is a power (2015)

#94

Post by aquariusDue »

parpfish wrote: post #12
drcongo wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's so far away from what stoic practice is. Is that really what TikTok tells you?

The modern/online resurgence of stoicism isn’t driven by people that have studied actual books. It’s being driven by people that are making tiktoks after they learned about it by watching a five minute YouTube video. It’s a very lossy game of telephone.

Only because Freud and Jung fell out of fashion, these TikToks are the pop-psychology books of yesteryear.

Re: Indifference is a power (2015)

#95

Post by fc417fc802 »

vannucci wrote: post #5
parpfish wrote: post #4

I can’t help but think that the rise in stoicisms popularity among manosphere types because it lets them repackage a lot of more undesirable masculine traits under a legitimate label— You’re not allowed to feel things. Emotions make you weak. Just suck it up and power through. Bottle it up. Whether those traits a “real stoicism” or not doesn’t matter, because that’s the way it gets spread through TikTok length discou…

This is the exact phrasing I was just searching for, and I fear the same thing that this pop stoicism revival is trying to formalize some really asocial behaviors.

It's not just pop stoicism. For years now it seems to me that a lot of memes regarding personal conduct spread on social media that essentially try to dress up toxic behavior in a positive light and encourage it.

I'm aware that society had these same sorts of issues prior to social media but it's still depressing watching it play out.

Re: Indifference is a power (2015)

#96

Post by id »

everdrive wrote: post #22
throwaw12 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO, its not dark. How I perceived it, Epictetus wants to say: things happen and you are on a spectrum of emotions based on the context (in case of death, how close you were to the person), try to minimize the length of the spectrum.

I agree in part. You could read Epictetus as saying "just try not caring about people," which I think is the incorrect reading. Instead, I think he's saying something like "take a step back and realize that your deep personal attachments don't look so important when you step outside your perspective. You can use this realization to help get past the deep emotional pain that is normal for people to feel." However, the…

The world being indifferent to your pain is not helping if you're in acute pain. Step outside your perspective, sure. I guarantee you this will not work if you have real issues like physical pain due to terminal cancer.

Re: Indifference is a power (2015)

#97

Post by iammjm »

drakenot wrote: post #9
parpfish wrote: post #4

I can’t help but think that the rise in stoicisms popularity among manosphere types because it lets them repackage a lot of more undesirable masculine traits under a legitimate label— You’re not allowed to feel things. Emotions make you weak. Just suck it up and power through. Bottle it up. Whether those traits a “real stoicism” or not doesn’t matter, because that’s the way it gets spread through TikTok length discou…

I think that’s more a critique of the modern caricature of stoicism than of Stoicism itself. Classical Stoicism isn’t about suppressing emotions. It’s about understanding your emotions, examining where they come from, and choosing how you respond rather than being ruled by them.

Also it's about learning to distinguish between stuff we can influence vs stuff we cannot. Like I cannot influence if the sun rises tomorrow or not, so there's not point in worrying about it

Re: Indifference is a power (2015)

#98

Post by raffael_de »

Aurornis wrote: post #66

I find classic Stoicism interesting, but these modern social media and influencer versions of Stoicism feel like something else entirely. The heading and subheading of this article invoke ideas of indifference and warriors and prisoners. This appeals to frustrated people, more often men, who are struggling with emotional regulation and want a solution that feels like a tough response. Maybe there’s something useful i…

Very well put. I'd add the psychological concept of dissociation which seems to be central to the hackernews version of stoicism. Instead of connecting to your emotions it encourages pushing them down. That's just going to postpone the moment when you have to deal with them. Either because of psychosomatic illness, depression, burn out or mental breakdown. Attempting to influence, change, control feelings/emotions by rational concepts and thinking is doomed to fail. Emotions are on a lower level than verbal and logical mental processes.

Re: Indifference is a power (2015)

#99

Post by HPsquared »

zozbot234 wrote: post #84
Aurornis wrote: post #66

I find classic Stoicism interesting, but these modern social media and influencer versions of Stoicism feel like something else entirely. The heading and subheading of this article invoke ideas of indifference and warriors and prisoners. This appeals to frustrated people, more often men, who are struggling with emotional regulation and want a solution that feels like a tough response. Maybe there’s something useful i…

Proper Stoicism is not about dodging your emotions, it's very much about dodging the adverse behavioral effects of your emotions. You're encouraged to work through your emotions proactively and in depth (the Stoics encouraged askesis which literally means 'training' or 'exercise') so that they don't adversely affect you and others down the road. Of course, you should also learn how to counter these effects in the mom…

Indeed, one exercise is negative visualization. Think about the worst thing that can happen in other words, simulate the feelings and mentally rehearse a measured response.

Re: Indifference is a power (2015)

#100

Post by threethirtytwo »

zxcvasd wrote: post #63
naasking wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do undesirable or desirable behaviours need a sex/gender label at all? Asshole behaviour isn't gender-specific. Maybe people should just focus on criticizing specific undesirable behaviours, and praising specific desirable behaviours.

The group of traits often described by "toxic masculinity" are overwhelmingly displayed only by males, so... it makes sense? If you aren't someone who displays that specific bundle of traits/behaviors, I would suggest being stoic about it and not taking the term personally.

The term is overused. Females have extremely toxic behavior as well. But the term toxic feminist is not used to label them. It’s nowhere near as extreme.
Post reply on HN