Not offended at all. I do see some Meditations showing through here. There is a lot of wisdom to be found in that work, and plenty of parallels to be drawn to the modern world -- Aurelius was, after all, dealing with the Antonine Plague just before dawn in the decline of the Roman Empire.
My biggest issue with Stoicism is that it is, at its best, basically therapy. Most of the advice in Meditations revolves around putting things into various perspectives that make a challenging situation not feel so bad. This can be quite valuable! However I think there's only so much therapy a person can do before they want to start actively changing their situation. I think the essay wants to go beyond Stoicism, to illustrate a radical path one can take to hopefully alter the circumstance of their existence positively.
I have absolutely no qualms with anyone who takes the "boring" path to provide for themselves or their family (to say otherwise would make me a hypocrite). However I think we tend to vastly overestimate what our needs are. The average yearly median in the US in 2019 was $35,977 according to the Census. This is the median, so 50% of the population lives on less than that! Probably most of the people at that wage want to make more (don't we all?) but I think the author is making the case for giving up on the luxury of tech pay in exchange for finding some actual purpose in our lives. I don't think that's disrespectful, it's just another option.
Thanks for posting, it was an interesting read. I agree with the premise "stoicism is not a sufficient philosophy for a good life, only a survivable one."
The rest of the article seems like a misinterpretation of Stoic ideas. For example "Our emotions and intuitions are not something to be set aside" which I think the stoics would agree with: "Don’t let the force of an impression when it first hits you knock you off your feet; just say to it, “Hold on a moment; let me see who you are and what you represent. Let me put you to the test." – Epictetus. Initial emotions should not be 'set aside' but should be 'seen for who they are and what they represent'.
He admits that "Learning to tame your emotions through willpower is helpful, but your emotions themselves are still an asset." Which sounds stoic to me?
Finally he provides an alternative "Instead to live well we must learn to create things outside ourselves, through ritual and poesy." Why ritual and poesy? Why not philosophy? I would love to know the reasoning behind this but none is provided.
My knowledge of Stoicism is limited, but I think my criticism is on the mark. I'd love to hear the opinions of more informed HN people.
I'm not all that fond of Stoicism, but this appears to be a recycled version of the same accusation that used to be leveled against Buddhism, so I wouldn't be surprised if it's based on the same misunderstanding. And as a progressive in the 21st century, it never occurred to me that interpreting Stoicism for myself would mean adopting the politics of long-dead Romans as my personal concept of "duty." Even with traditional religion it's considered weird and extremist to take that approach. For me, and for this author, a charitable reading of Stoicism would have to include compassion and activism in the concept of duty, similar to the ethical stance of engaged Buddhism.
For those not wanting to wade through this, the thesis seems to be "...Stoicism caught on among Roman elites because it was the one form of philosophical guidance that didn’t urge them to renounce wealth or power....can be used to justify the idea that the rich and powerful are meant to be rich and powerful, that the poor and downtrodden are meant to be poor and downtrodden, and that even the worst actions are actually good in an ineffable and eternal way. Such claims can be used to justify complacency, social callousness, and even exploitative or destructive behavior."
I love philosophers, history, and philosophy. I consider myself an existential stoic. (How I reconcile these philosophies I will save for another day) The problem I had with this essay is the same problem I have with a lot of philosophy: it takes itself far, far too seriously for my tastes.
Do the rich adapt stoicism because of the underlying metaphysics in much the same way that powerful Romans did? Did powerful Romans even adapt it in this way, or are we left with various interpretations depending on which sources we use? More to the point, when you pick up a philosophy, decide you like it and want to apply it in your life, is this decision akin to adopting a new religion, becoming part of a cult? Or is it more like entertaining some useful concepts that you play on playing with to see how useful they may be to you?
It's not a facile question. If we adopt philosophies in the same we adopt worldviews, then the history and inner conflicts can be quite important. If, however, we adopt philosophies in the same we might pick up a grape Slurpee at the local seven-eleven, then not so much.
Philosophy tends to take itself far too seriously, and it tends to take a few really good ideas and beat the living heck out of them until they don't work anymore. I doubt the thesis here. Or rather, it's overstated by a significant degree.
> It's insulting in the sense that the stoicism of many men is considered unintelligent, primitive, underdeveloped.
I've heard a lot about men needing to be more expressive and open about their inner emotional state, but I've never heard people mention stoicism in the same context or that stoicism necessarily leads to the opposite of that.
Or that stoicism is associated with being unintelligent, primitive or underdeveloped.
Have you heard it from your circle in a social setting? I'm curious where you heard such sentiments.
It seems to me that the essay makes a claim about the nature of stoicism and how it could be expected to influence modern fans of the philosophy, and you are making a claim about the magnitude or degree to which modern students of the philosophy actually commit themselves to it. I'm not sure there is a genuine contradiction here. She may be correct in saying that, to the degree that one adopts the precepts stoicism, it will tend to have such and such an effect on you; and you may be correct to point out that modern students of stoicism are not likely to commit themselves to the philosophy with religious fervor.
By the way, I would say a better thesis statement is found in the final paragraph: Because I think it’s important that we mingle some Voltaire in with our Seneca, and remember that stoicism’s invaluable advice for taking better care of ourselves inside can–if we fail to mix it with other ideas–come with a big blind spot regarding the world outside ourselves, and whether we should change it.
FWIW I responded but I didn't downvote it, and I agree with the idea in general, but it did feel a little out of place.
Here's my opinion why. It's hard to turn on Stoicism in the moment, it's a perspective on life that requires repeated practice and diligence. Hopefully, by the time you reach a crisis like this, it comes naturally and gives you an outlet.
It's like if my house burnt down, and someone came along and said, "Brick is better than wood. It doesn't burn in the same way."
To me, this article reads like it was written by an inexperienced blogger who probably checked off 'stoicism' of their list of popular topics to write about, despite the fact they don't know much about stoicism.
That being said, I feel like the article fails to drive anything meaningful. Thats not to say stoicism is pointless. There are many people in the discussion here that bring up great points about stoicism.
As for myself, I don't know much more than the pop culture basics of stoicism so I can really give any further guidance.
Was going to type up a similar response. This is exactly how I feel. Stoicism looks like it's gaining in popularity because of people reacting to the oversensitivity running rampant in society today. You can hardly teach people today that feeling bad is OK.
This neomodern take where everything has to be distilled into some black and white political view is not very applicable to reality in general, and even less so here. Stoicism a philosophical and worldview, not a political one. There were, and are, Stoics in all walks of life.
Various individuals, in modern Western history, that have held Aurelius' meditations in extremely high esteem range from the person who coined the term collective bargaining, to Bill Clinton, to an Army general. [1] Among countless others. Of course holding that book in high esteem is not the same as being a Stoic, but on the other hand I don't think it's terribly far from it. The book would be quite a pointless source of inspiration for one who wasn't endeavoring to integrate Stoic ideals into their life. Stoicism is what one makes of it - it's not like you get a member card, and manuscript of dogma and taboo.
I didn't mean that as a criticism. Those were just my thoughts as I read the book. I lack deep knowledge on the subject, and I'll leave meaningful debate to the experts. However, if "Meditations" were the root source of stoicism, I think I'd take issue with it as described here alone.
I do disagree with your specific reasoning, though. Humans have an enormous capacity for adapting to horrid conditions by convincing themselves that it's not that bad. That's true in big society-level situations, and small personal ones: "Cut off my arm? I can survive with just one!" "This cancer isn't going to beat me!" "One day we'll rise up!" I'm not talking about Epictetus specifically. It's likely you know more about him than I do. I'm certain his condition as a slave was far different than that of a stolen African person in the Civil War-era American south, or people today in current places around the world. However, in general, I don't think "Epictetus is a former slave" is by itself strong evidence that his philosophy didn't allow for resignation to slavery.
I enjoy studying and considering stoicism but I have to think statements like
>one of the biggest groups of people interested in it seems to be millennials who work in the tech industry
and considering a simplified description of stoicism
>the endurance of pain or hardship without the display of feelings and without complaint.
To be an indictment of our industry. We're not coal-miners. We're not picking out in the fields or roofing in the hot sun. Cafeterias and RSUs aren't hardships.
I'm curious why you think the author misrepresents/misunderstands stoicism on this point.
The entire piece is that Stoicism is an individual's philosophy -- one that solves an individual's struggles. The philosophy helps confront that which you can't control...but the author is arguing that it will tempt you to throw up your hands, that you can't control anything.
The short of it is that Stoicism encourages an individual to draw within themselves and create a worldview that is acceptable. All well and good for the individual, but the world's problems will be fixed by collective action -- not individuals withdrawing.
Too much Stoic navel gazing might decrease the likelihood you join the community action board.
>The real issue is that being consequent about stoicism seems to always result in contradiction given mankind's current state of knowledge. On one hand stoicism is concerned with not wasting time (on indulgences) and at the same time it ignores that a market economy (embedded in a democratic society) is the only way we know of, that can reliably force a larger population to strive for efficiency.
I don't think we "know" anything of the sort. That's just an ideology people who believe in market economy subscribe to. Efficiency, for one, is an empty term. Efficiency with regards to what and towards what? And why "force a larger population" to strive for it?
>And of course we're all just fallible selfish humans
Not sure about that either -- if it's meant in the extreme. I know millions who have devoted themselves to various external causes, even to the point of being improsoned and losing their jobs etc for it. From patriotic duty in an occupied land, to overthrowing a dictatorship, to working for civil rights and for equality, people following the communist ideals in the 20th century, etc. Even the nazi party followers were willing to sacrifice themselves (young soldiers etc), for some outer cause. Same for those who fought against them of course.
>Just imagine how much more of our time would be wasted if there weren't an army of "tools" out there, working 8 hours a day towards the "indulgence" of ensuring that there is allways enough fresh milk stocked in the supermarkets of our cities.
We have lived in societies were there wasn't always "enough fresh milk stocked in the supermarkets of our cities" and people managed just fine.
In fact common people had even more free time than now. Leaving your "9-5" job or your small shop you worked on every afternoon without any worry (and no boss to get you on the mobile), working only 5 days a week and with month long holidays annually, siesta and afternoon naps, people strolling and idling in cafes and city squares, etc, was very common, in 20th century Paris, Vienna, Rome, Barcelona, Athens, etc. In fact, up to the 80s-90s it was still almost like that. We might not have had Walmart 24/7 superstores or all kinds of BS foods and "indulgences" but it's not like they were missed much, if any.
> I've got a book or two on stoicism that I mean to read through at some point and see if there's anything to that.
I think Stoics believed that being "stoic" (quiety going through the suffering) was neccessary to accomplish something good. Which is a problem, because the modern worker often does not want to accomplish anything and sees no point to anything. People with children at least have a purpose of providing support for them, but others often don't see any point to existing, other than the self-preservation instinct.
I believe that the Stoicism's appeal (for modern tech people) is that it is basically a very rational approach to life and its problems.
It is also very adaptable to modern day culture: it downplays Religion but respects Society, for example.
Last but not least, the image of dour, ascetical, judgemental party poopers is a bit off mark, I think.
The ideal Stoic is of course quite restrained in everything, but feeling somehow superior, a part of some elite is a mistake in itself.
In fact it doesn't have a thesis, as far as the question "why does stoicism appeal to modern rich and powerful". The partial quote you posted is part of a musing around that topic, but it only takes reading that paragraph in full to see what you call its thesis is nothing of the sort.
Here it is for the lazy:
"Thus, turning to the questions that Nellie asked me for her article, when I see a fad for stoicism among today’s rising rich, I see a good side and a bad side. The good side is that stoicism, sharing a lot with Buddhism, teaches that the only real treasures are inner treasures–virtue, self-mastery, courage, charity–and that all things in existence are part of one good, divine, and sacred whole, a stance which can combat selfishness and intolerance by encouraging self-discipline and teaching us to love and value every stranger as much as we love our families and ourselves. But on the negative side, 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, that the poor and downtrodden are meant to be poor and downtrodden, and that even the worst actions are actually good in an ineffable and eternal way. Such claims can be used to justify complacency, social callousness, and even exploitative or destructive behavior."
My biggest issue with Stoicism is that it is, at its best, basically therapy. Most of the advice in Meditations revolves around putting things into various perspectives that make a challenging situation not feel so bad. This can be quite valuable! However I think there's only so much therapy a person can do before they want to start actively changing their situation. I think the essay wants to go beyond Stoicism, to illustrate a radical path one can take to hopefully alter the circumstance of their existence positively.
I have absolutely no qualms with anyone who takes the "boring" path to provide for themselves or their family (to say otherwise would make me a hypocrite). However I think we tend to vastly overestimate what our needs are. The average yearly median in the US in 2019 was $35,977 according to the Census. This is the median, so 50% of the population lives on less than that! Probably most of the people at that wage want to make more (don't we all?) but I think the author is making the case for giving up on the luxury of tech pay in exchange for finding some actual purpose in our lives. I don't think that's disrespectful, it's just another option.
reply