Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Whiplash17488 t1_j0ejoe1 wrote

This is just a quote from Seneca but Stoicism is a deep personal virtue ethics on how to live a tranquil life with joy.

Its worth looking into. But its one of those things that requires study as well as practice.

132

A_Taste_of_Travel t1_j0f9znp wrote

I prefer epicureanism

12

DeflateGape t1_j0fmjw0 wrote

It’s a good philosophy, much better suited for life than a miserable philosophy like stoicism. I’m laughing here thinking about all these modern “stoics” downvoting you on their computing devices. The stoics thought owning a cup was extravagant, pop philosophy is such garbage.

Edit: such weak ass people, to downvote a serious comment because they can’t defend their own bullshit worthless opinion. Not a single person on Reddit is a stoic, you are all soft, materialistic, pleasure chasers. Go on, pretend to be a stoic. Maybe you can buy a Cowboy Hat and walk around pretending to be John Wayne next. That’s quality motivation, just run around talking like an action hero based on your misinterpreted fake version of an ascetic philosophy you are too weak to actually try to live by.

19

Stokkolm t1_j0g6hyc wrote

Isn't being stoic more about not consuming your energy being angry about things you can't have or bad things that happen outside of your control?

Giving up easily available resources like computers and internet just to make life harder for no reason sounds more like masochism.

17

Whiplash17488 t1_j0g0heq wrote

> The stoics thought owning a cup was extravagant

Can you tell me more on how you’ve come to think that? I understood that sentiment to be the school of cynicism instead.

> pop philosophy

When a real crisis comes and all the one liners and motivational memes fall through the cracks, some people do make it down to the source material because they need more.

> pretend to be a stoic

Even in the ancient writings they acknowledge the “sage” as more of an untenable ideal rather than a real person. Socrates’ name comes up in that context of someone worth looking up to but even he was not a sage. When does a person become the label I wonder.

7

Phobac07 t1_j0h0lpr wrote

I think your making a comment in bad faith and being disingenuous, one of the famous ancient stoics was Marcus Aurelius.

A Roman Emperor.

2

CarrionComfort t1_j0ften3 wrote

The popularity of stoicism is unfortunate. At its worst, it’s just more “money can’t buy you happiness” bullshit and used to justify not giving a shit.

0

Aliiredli t1_j0fw2zw wrote

So where does fear of god and the day of judgment lie in of those two philosophies?

−5

RETVRN_II_SENDER t1_j0fwim7 wrote

lmao is this a serious question?

7

Aliiredli t1_j0g14uq wrote

Yes

0

RETVRN_II_SENDER t1_j0gctis wrote

God is beneath us, so why fear something beneath us

1

Aliiredli t1_j0hnu7o wrote

God's definition doesn't say that though. Your description contradicts it.

1

Whiplash17488 t1_j0fyw0s wrote

I think a lot of folks are more Epicurean in their philosophy of life without knowing it. The Stoics themselves borrowed a lot from what their rival school had to offer as well.

I am still in the phase myself on studying the differences between the two more thoroughly.

Seneca himself often quotes Epicurus positively. By way of example:

> “Quite possibly you’ll be demanding to know why I’m quoting so many fine sayings from Epicurus rather than ones belonging to our own school. But why should you think of them as belonging to Epicurus and not as common property?” - Seneca’s Letters

12

phuzzy1deep t1_j0gu5j5 wrote

Tough as hell. To not have desires or aversions, just the same.

5

Whiplash17488 t1_j0iv1pw wrote

The ancient Stoics agree with you, I think.

Stoics do have desires and aversions. Its just that they rationalize its healthier to try to divert them to things they can fully control.

Lets take a tennis match. What don’t you control? How good your opponent is, wether you’re on top of your game on the day of the match and wether you win.

Placing your desire in winning and your aversion in losing would not be ideal.

Instead you can try to be consciously intentional about placing your desire in putting in training a couple of times a week, eating healthy, and intentionally trying to play the best possible game ever.

“I lost and this is the worst thing ever” becomes “I lost but I’m proud of the effort I put in and losing to a better opponent is a reasonable way to lose”.

5

phuzzy1deep t1_j0jajzu wrote

I interpret it as: “I’m horny. I should stop being horny.” Type of aversion. Even with my wife. Like I say: “No. I must avoid desires. Like a damn trial by fire.

1

thisismyaccount3125 t1_j0jc4ts wrote

I may be wrong, but I don’t interpret it that way. I still need to look into it further, but my interpretation is that it’s a certain level of detachment from the external world. You assume it’s the literal detachment to things that make you feel good, but I disagree. I think it’s a detachment from what you think it means and recognize things for what they are. A pair of Jordans mean a lot of things - status, a particular taste, money. But at the end of the day, it’s still just a pair of shoes that will either be worn and used like other shoes or displayed as decor. That kind of detachment.

You can still appreciate things when detached this way. You’ll appreciate different things for different reasons than before; life doesn’t just suddenly start sucking if you’re a stoic in the Senecan sense.

I think. Like I said, I need to look into it further.

update: I looked into it a little bit further and holy hell dude, stoicism is lit af

2

obiwanmoloney t1_j0hozbg wrote

Highly recommend reading Happy by Derren Brown, it’s practically a study on stoicism and Derren’s done a lot of the heavy lifting

1

Cinaedus_Perversus t1_j0fqont wrote

>deep personal virtue ethics

The only deep thing about stoicism is the layer of metaphysical bullshit it's based on.

−7

Whiplash17488 t1_j0g1jp6 wrote

With deep I mostly meant there is a richness in material to the philosophy from the original ancients that has survived. And then a richness in material that has been written about it since. Including criticism.

> Metaphysical bullshit

Its a wild ride that part. Its also interesting to read how people try to reconcile that part as Christians, atheists, bhuddists and so on.

The creator of modern cognitive behavioural therapy, Aaron Temkin Beck, directly attributes the therapy to the Stoic disciplines of passion, action and assent. And CBT is objectively helping tens of thousands every day. CBT in essence proves that there are parts of Stoicism that hold true even if their metaphysical ideas didn’t stand the test of science.

3