Thoughts on Stoicism?

[piano]

I read some negative things about it on here and was a bit confused. I started reading a book on it and managed to apply the knowledge to better control and redirect my (negative) emotions. For example, I was scared to shit for a piano performance (200+ people) and applied a technique (which I think was also called "cognitive distancing"?) and slayed it.

I can see the argument "You become content with your current situation" and "You'll remove your source of change: fear/hate/anger", but I think that's the extreme end of the spectrum (aka that one hippie guy that meditates for 7 hours a day and smokes pot).
Even a Stoic would realise that he'd need to work hard/get rich to raise his child properly and live in accordance to his values (if that were one of his values/morals).

Although that was just my thoughts. Am Interested to hear your opinions!

 

Dislike ads? Become a Fastlane member: Subscribe today and surround yourself with winners and millionaire mentors, not those broke friends who only want to drink beer and play video games. :-)

[Costa]

Don't be confused, look, in every topic/matter there's always different perspectives.

Philosophy is a tricky topic, is not what people say, it's how they say.

Be careful with content you consume. You gonna see "Siths" acting like they are "Jedis".

A lot of Stoicism content accounts (ig, yt, books, etc) aren't made by stoics. So beware who are you following.

 

[heavy_industry]

At its core, the stoic philosophy is based upon the idea that the natural world works according to a fixed set of laws called "logos".

The natural world doesn't care about us or our stupid dreams and desires. It will do what it wants. We are the ones that need to adapt in order to survive and thrive.

If it starts raining and you get soaking wet, it's not nature's fault. It's your fault for being an idiot and not taking an umbrella.

Life is never too hard, you are just too stupid and/or ill prepared.

This philosophy basically tells you that you are responsible for anything and everything in your life. You have no control over the world, but you should always have control over yourself.


I don't know any successful person that doesn't have this mindset, or some variation of it. Although not a lot of people that practice this call themselves "stoics". They just do it because it works.

Stoicism is very poorly understood by the general public, and has become a self-help cool buzzword to use.

 

[piano]

There is a LOT to go into, some stuff I'm not even qualified to really answer (due to lack of knowledge or experience.

The Stoic will say: your family got killed? Your money got taken away from you? You were beaten and dragged through the public square as a traitor? Don’t worry, you haven’t lost anything. Nobody can humiliate you if you don’t let them. Sure, they may have your body in chains, spitting on you, whatever. But what truly matters is your attitude and will, and no one can take that away from you.

However here I'll explain why I disagree:
What you're explaining is pretty hardcore. Why did the Stoic even found a family if he only needs his mind to be content? The Stoic would here contemplate and reflect on the past, how and why it happened and try to improve, fix the problem or take another path if it's impossible/not worth it.
Additionally, let's take this:

Nobody can humiliate you if you don’t let them. Sure, they may have your body in chains, spitting on you, whatever.

What is more useful?

Option A: grow angry, sad or fall into despair/depression

or

Option B: Stay focused, indifferent and unharmed, more capable than the mentally broken man.

I don't think Stoics are to-the-max-delusional people. They try to see things rationally and do strive for a better life (if that's what their purpose is).

 

[piano]

Because it was the most virtuous thing to do at the time. Virtue includes being a good citizen and part of society, so presumably the Stoic had the chance to get married AND deemed this to be virtue in his society.

So while marriage (or any other external action) can be a tool of virtue, it is never virtue itself.


Option A. I want to be angry and sad and depressed, and I ought to be, because a real harm has been done to me. I am in chains and humiliated. I have no reason to be happy in that position (contrary to the Stoic, who wants to be happy regardless of externals).

Being harmed does not mean being mentally broken. What you qualify as “mentally broken” has to do with the actions one takes. You take that to mean languishing in despair and not doing anything.

But I wouldn’t languish in despair. I’d look for whatever means of escape I could find, and my mind would be busy formulating plans that I could try to execute on. All the while feeling angry, sad and depressed. The feelings and thoughts I have don’t have to control my actions. But to say that I shouldn’t feel angry/upset etc. in that situation suggests that my feelings should not be related to my environment. And we know this is complete and utter BS — our feelings and thoughts, including anger and depression exist to help us navigate reality. That’s why, evolutionarily speaking, we have those feelings.


The Stoics conflate “rational” with whatever is in agreement with their underlying philosophy that virtue is the only good. I disagree that virtue is the only good. In the philosophy I’ve outlined above, there are many other goods of which I am being deprived by being in chains and humiliated. Therefore it is entirely rational to be angry and depressed, and to use that energy of anger and depression to do whatever it takes to change my situation.

I again don't agree fully, however, if your mindset actually does you more good, more fulfilment and pride (or something else that you value dearly), then that's great!

Imagining myself in your hypothetical situations, I think the Stoic approach would do me more good.
But either way, I still have to experiment more with Stoicism, so I can't say with 100% that it's actually the case for me.

Thank you for sharing your viewpoint!

 

[Johnny boy]

Just look at @Johnny boy — he kicks his own gf out the of the house because she distracts him. If anyone doesn’t support him, he eliminates them from his life. Ruthless. Whatever it takes to win. That’s how most successful people are. They are not Stoics. None of the Stoics would admire them.

The Greek definition of virtue was usefulness and fulfillment of purpose. Embodying the concept of Areté is for all things to fulfill their purpose, that is what makes something/someone virtuous. A cup holds water. A man has his obligations. It fulfills its virtue.

Kicking her out was fulfilling my fiduciary duty to my company and my goals. And it was a choice that had to conflict with short term comfort and pleasure.

 

Dislike ads? Become a Fastlane member: Subscribe today and surround yourself with winners and millionaire mentors, not those broke friends who only want to drink beer and play video games. :-)

[Deleted88861]

I read some negative things about it on here and was a bit confused. I started reading a book on it and managed to apply the knowledge to better control and redirect my (negative) emotions. For example, I was scared to shit for a piano performance (200+ people) and applied a technique (which I think was also called "cognitive distancing"?) and slayed it.

I can see the argument "You become content with your current situation" and "You'll remove your source of change: fear/hate/anger", but I think that's the extreme end of the spectrum (aka that one hippie guy that meditates for 7 hours a day and smokes pot).
Even a Stoic would realise that he'd need to work hard/get rich to raise his child properly and live in accordance to his values (if that were one of his values/morals).

Although that was just my thoughts. Am Interested to hear your opinions!

I enjoy using some of the Stoic teachings when it comes to their outlook on comfort in every day life - There are some very cool insights around wanting to be warm and cosy in bed instead of getting out in the world.

After going through an existential crisis at the age of 16 (26 now) when getting deep into self-help and spirituality, getting scammed, then losing someone I love to suicide, then losing somone else close to me last year, I personally have found Stoicism very helpful, almost finding comfort in the acknowledgement that uncomfortable situations will come about for us all.

 

[Roli]

This is so wrong. Most successful people are the FARTHEST thing possible from Stoicism. And this betrays a crucial misunderstanding of both the philosophy and history.

Who are the winners in history? Is it people like Socrates or Seneca? No — they got killed. Instead it is people like Genghis Khan, Augustus, Alexander the Great and so on, all of which had no concern with anything else but winning. They did whatever it took — moral or immoral, that didn’t matter so long as it was a winning move.

Marcus Aurelius had no friends. He was alone. He writes in his Meditations how all the successful people around him at the imperial Court were greedy and conniving, and how he would much rather had been in the countryside, not bearing the duty of an Emperor. There were no Stoics around all the successful people surrounding him. Even his own son was not a Stoic!

Not a lot of people call it Stocisim because it’s NOT. You don’t need to be a Stoic to be ruthless and driven and do whatever it takes to win like an Alexander the Great. Stoicism is not about winning in earthly life. It is about living virtuously, which is a big difference.

I have a big difficulty to see how the vast majority of people cannot see that there is a big difference between ethics and power — and ethics does not necessarily lead to power. Sometimes it can, like with Marcus Aurelius, but many other times it leads to the guillotine.

Machiavelli understood this. Sometimes you have to be a fox, other times a lion… meaning that ethics has no relationship to power. He also put it another way… to win, sometimes you have to be a man, and sometimes a beast. What this means is that sometimes the winning move is ethical, but sometimes it’s not.

The Stoic will always choose what is ethical, even if that leads to losing. The winner, your “successful” person will always choose what leads to winning.

Just look at @Johnny boy — he kicks his own gf out the of the house because she distracts him. If anyone doesn’t support him, he eliminates them from his life. Ruthless. Whatever it takes to win. That’s how most successful people are. They are not Stoics. None of the Stoics would admire them.

Brilliant, well made, sometimes painfully funny points, I'm guessing you've studied philosophy beyond a lay interest?

Anyway, you articulate a lot of thoughts I've had/been having about Stoicism but wasn't sure if I was understanding it properly. So thanks for the quick philosophy lesson!

 

[heavy_industry]

This is so wrong. Most successful people are the FARTHEST thing possible from Stoicism. And this betrays a crucial misunderstanding of both the philosophy and history.

Who are the winners in history? Is it people like Socrates or Seneca? No — they got killed. Instead it is people like Genghis Khan, Augustus, Alexander the Great and so on, all of which had no concern with anything else but winning. They did whatever it took — moral or immoral, that didn’t matter so long as it was a winning move.

Marcus Aurelius had no friends. He was alone. He writes in his Meditations how all the successful people around him at the imperial Court were greedy and conniving, and how he would much rather had been in the countryside, not bearing the duty of an Emperor. There were no Stoics around all the successful people surrounding him. Even his own son was not a Stoic!

Not a lot of people call it Stocisim because it’s NOT. You don’t need to be a Stoic to be ruthless and driven and do whatever it takes to win like an Alexander the Great. Stoicism is not about winning in earthly life. It is about living virtuously, which is a big difference.

I have a big difficulty to see how the vast majority of people cannot see that there is a big difference between ethics and power — and ethics does not necessarily lead to power. Sometimes it can, like with Marcus Aurelius, but many other times it leads to the guillotine.

Machiavelli understood this. Sometimes you have to be a fox, other times a lion… meaning that ethics has no relationship to power. He also put it another way… to win, sometimes you have to be a man, and sometimes a beast. What this means is that sometimes the winning move is ethical, but sometimes it’s not.

The Stoic will always choose what is ethical, even if that leads to losing. The winner, your “successful” person will always choose what leads to winning.

Just look at @Johnny boy — he kicks his own gf out the of the house because she distracts him. If anyone doesn’t support him, he eliminates them from his life. Ruthless. Whatever it takes to win. That’s how most successful people are. They are not Stoics. None of the Stoics would admire them.

Maybe.

You are very well read and are significantly more educated than me on this topic.

I am not interested in philosophy. Nor am I capable of having a debate on this subject, because I do not understand the different schools of thought throughout history. I don't care either.

The only thing that I derived from stoicism is the idea that you are fully responsible and (should be) in control of your own actions.

You may not always be in control of the world around you. But you should always have full control over yourself. You are the source of your life, and the master of your destiny. Accidents will happen, but even then you can choose how to respond.

How the world is, is not your choice. But how you see the world, is entirely your own making.

When I said that "all successful people that I know have this mindset", I did not refer to stoicism.
I referred to having a strong internal locus of control.

I am the master of my world. My life is my making.

 

[Mo Joe]

Just look at @Johnny boy — he kicks his own gf out the of the house because she distracts him. If anyone doesn’t support him, he eliminates them from his life. Ruthless. Whatever it takes to win. That’s how most successful people are. They are not Stoics. None of the Stoics would admire them.

You mean all successful people does "whatever it takes to win"? You describe all as they are psichopaths. Maybe I misunderstood you?

To be a fastlaner I think we need high virtue, to create value for people.

 

[Johnny boy]

So whereas you put your obligation to your own personal goals above your obligations to the world,

I was not placed as the custodian of the world, I was placed as the custodian of my goals.

And I don’t see what my girl living with me has to do with being a good person or not.

 

Dislike ads? Become a Fastlane member: Subscribe today and surround yourself with winners and millionaire mentors, not those broke friends who only want to drink beer and play video games. :-)

[Johnny boy]

OK, but what does any of this have to do with Stoicism?

Stoics would not consider someone who is just the custodian of their goals and pursue their goals doing whatever it takes to achieve them as a virtuous person.

I didn't judge you as a good or bad person, I simply said that your style isn't aligned with Stoicism. And btw, I am not even in agreement with the fundamental Stoic view that virtue is the only good.

You tagged me in this thread

I think it was just about a choice to do what was necessary instead of what was easy.

 

[WillHurtDontCare]

Hegel said that stoicism was a ghey cope that Marcus Aurelius employed to deal with the fact that Rome was in terminal decline and there was nothing he could do about it

The problem with stoicism is it teaches you to be too passive and accepting of whatever circumstances you face. While you obviously can't control everything, you can basically control all of the main things that you'd care about - money, significant other, who you spend time with, what you work on, where you live.

Also, one mistake that Ryan Holiday enjoyers make is thinking that emotions are bad. Anger is F*cking great if you can keep it on a leash - and when people piss you off you should get angry and acting accordingly. You don't try to meditate your feelings away like a powerless slave - you use the energy from them to get what you want out of life.

FYI, Nietzsche talked about how the Ancient Greeks thought that all emotions are good - anger, jealousy, etc. We wouldn't have them if they served no purpose.

But lets jump to a criticism of philosophy generally - it's often takes the form of yet another consumerist hobby where people read, yap on forums, then make no meaningful changes to their lives. Your real philosophy is how you live, not flipping through books. And I'll just gloss over how people read the philosophies of others and get everything wrong.

This is so wrong. Most successful people are the FARTHEST thing possible from Stoicism. And this betrays a crucial misunderstanding of both the philosophy and history.

All that anyone in this thread needs to read.

TLDR - stoicism is gay - chase what you want, keep your emotions in check and use them to fuel you to get there

 

[SnowLava]

Hegel said that stoicism was a ghey cope that Marcus Aurelius employed to deal with the fact that Rome was in terminal decline and there was nothing he could do about it

The problem with stoicism is it teaches you to be too passive and accepting of whatever circumstances you face. While you obviously can't control everything, you can basically control all of the main things that you'd care about - money, significant other, who you spend time with, what you work on, where you live.

Very late reply to the thread but EXACTLY what I have been thinking. Your and @Black_Dragon43 s post completely resonate with me. After reading stoicism at first, I became the so called 'stoic'. But however, the more I read about it the more I realize its shortages. I think its good if a person develops the attitude that they themselves have control over their emotions, but other than that, stoics believe they cannot control anything. I even saw a (fat)TEDx talk of a famous stoic writer claiming that (paraphrasing) - 'I just focus on my diet, but I do not control whether I lose weight or not". Like wtf? Unless you have some rare issues, you DO CONTROL WHETHER YOU LOSE WEIGHT. I thought that I was somewhere wrong as I couldnt find anyone else thinking the same way, but seeing these threads were awesome.