Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

zazzologrendsyiyve t1_j7k8r4v wrote

This article screams strawman argument from top to bottom. A couple of examples:

“Say my wife is feeling tired and irritable. I can either, as a good Stoic, try to feel good about that, or I can get up from the lounge and bring her a glass of wine and some crackers with Taramasalata.”

Nowhere in the Stoic philosophy does it suggest to “feel good” about someone you love being angry or sad. Realizing that you are not in control of something outside of your own person does not mean to feel good of be happy no matter what.

A good example would be your wife being sad and you not pretending you can control that by PRETENDING she stops, say because you are also tired. A good stoic would only focus on his own reaction, maybe by being a good person/husband and being supportive, instead of implicitly pretending that she should not do that “because you are my wife!!!”.

A good stoic would not get to the point of being too tired to NOT be supportive for his wife.

“This leads us to the passivity problem. If we focus only on our character, reactions, and actions, as Stoicism proposes, and put no effort into things that lie beyond our direct control, it seems to me that a practising Stoic will remain passive in the face of major problems like climate change or social inequality.”

Realizing you are not in control of climate change does not mean you are automatically allowed to simply don’t care about it, or contributing to making it worse, as the author implies.

It could mean to take the situation seriously enough to decide to change your own person and habits based on what society demands, but not seriously enough as to think that YOU have the power to change it personally.

The latter will grant you the feeling of impotency because, as we know, no single person is in charge of fixing climate change. No single person SHOULD even being in charge of that, even if it was possible.

Thinking that you have the power to fix things outside of your control is one of the most frequent and potent traps in human cognition. Recognizing this could lead you to maximize your positive impact, because you would focus on yourself without “wasting” energy fixing what you cannot possibly fix.

So focus on yourself and then have the biggest positive impact in the world.

Realizing that you cannot control what you cannot control does NOT mean “who cares!!!!!”.

339

tdimaginarybff t1_j7kab60 wrote

Very good explanation. Being Stoic doesn’t mean being helpless, a doormat, or not caring. I spend so much energy on the “result” instead of what I have power over (myself, my actions, even my reactions). But it’s such a powerful idea, to work on what’s in my control and just let go of the other things. Thanks for the reply, nicely put

57

VersaceEauFraiche t1_j7kovgb wrote

It is funny/interesting/crazy how Stoicism is essentially the Serenity Prayer but some still try to strawman it. Then again people strawman Nietzscheanism into being a teenage rebellion and about becoming superman, so eh.

Serenity Prayer: God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

46

natophonic2 t1_j7pwk84 wrote

I guess I need to go back and read Nietzsche again. I read Thus Sprach Zarathustra and the parable of the eagle and the lamb, and it put me the fuck off because it really did come off as a “imma do what I want, cause I’m special” teenage rebellion. And I read that as a 14 year old who was neck deep in Ayn Rand fandom at the time.

3

VersaceEauFraiche t1_j7pxccl wrote

Nietzsche makes more sense if you start reading him as if his words were in dialogue with Socrates. He's writing in contrast to him. My readings of him went down smoother as soon as I used this rule of thumb.

2

kryori t1_j7nc9ma wrote

You've got it backwards. The serenity prayer is stoicism with extra baggage.

A stoic wouldn't ask a god for these traits; a stoic would understand that a god is one more thing outside of their control and instead work to develop these traits within themselves without the need for a god.

−2

theronimous t1_j7nf8zc wrote

You don’t actually “need” a god to understand the Serenity Prayer. It’s fairly straightforward logic. As an atheist, I understand what it means.

11

kryori t1_j7nk943 wrote

It's literally a prayer, a request for someone else to grant you the desired qualities.

I'm not missing the conceptual parallels. I'm saying that asking someone else to grant you these traits is less stoic than accepting that you lack them now and working to develop them without having someone grant them to you.

3

theronimous t1_j7nyoeb wrote

You’re too hung up on the “god” reference for your opinion to be of any value. Maybe you don’t understand “wisdom” and that is your problem.

7

kryori t1_j7oth83 wrote

The god part is irrelevant. The difference in philosophy here is whether you do something yourself or beg someone else to do it for you.

I'm just saying a stoic would work to better themselves rather than asking someone else to make them a better person.

Hang on to that. You might find it to be a useful point of view, in time.

2

theronimous t1_j7rpyvy wrote

|The god part is irrelevant

I don’t understand your point. The serenity prayer makes sense even if you remove the reference to ”God”. I consider it as a figure of speech, as if you are coming to the realization (on your own). An epiphany so to speak.

I highly recommend reading the Christian Bible’s book of Proverbs, even if you don’t believe in Christianity.

1

cartoptauntaun t1_j7unoq2 wrote

I’m an ex-Christian and I understand your criticism but I do think it rings empty for believers.

Asking “god, grant me” is a literal request, like you said, but (in my upbringing) the appeal to god is more about humility and invoking the spiritual. By selecting this prayer and holding it in their heart a person has made the decision to focus their intentions this way. It’s a different type of communication is all.

1

kryori t1_j7wswfl wrote

The root of stoicism was the understanding that the only thing one can control is themselves and their own reactions to the outside world. They knew they couldn't control the gods. So, rather than pray to Zeus for bravery or Hera for wisdom, they worked to foster bravery and wisdom within themselves. You can take their ideas and express them in prayer, but if you say that prayer is equivalent to that idea you're just wrong. The prayer adds supplication and dependence upon the divine that stoics rejected.

1

cartoptauntaun t1_j7x59nn wrote

I don’t think it’s fair to equate the broad spectrum of modern religious practice and beliefs about divinity with millennium old beliefs about the Roman pantheon. It’s a little ahistorical to apply the writing of Marcus Aurelius to modern belief systems.

“They knew they couldn’t control the gods” is fundamental to many modern religions, especially non-fundamentalists, which make up the bulk of religious adherents AFAIK.

1

GurnseyWivvums t1_j7kfvrq wrote

All good points. To add on to your climate change example: there’s a big difference between that (you can at least affect change there) and, say, getting mad at the day’s weather or human nature (which exists totally outside your control). Epictetus said (I’m Paraphrasing) “I’m fond of a jug. When the jug breaks, I simply sweep it up. It’s in the jug’s nature to break.” You could try to protect your jug but once it breaks, you can’t go back in time, can’t change the reality of it being broken. So, yeah, a stoic isn’t going to sit and cast anger into the past about damage already done to the environment but also won’t give up and do absolutely nothing about a problem that isn’t in their sole, direct control.

17

Bjd1207 t1_j7l932e wrote

Exactly my problem with the first part of the article. I mean he even ends that section saying that Nietzsche agrees: "Even if you’re (almost) guaranteed to fail, there is merit in extending yourself and expressing yourself into (or even against) the world.

Sure, you can’t control the outcome."

A stoic would say basically the same thing. I really can't believe the author didn't see this right in front of them.

But the equanimity part is something I struggle with myself when it comes to stoicism. I've recently started therapy and one of the biggest revelations is that I have (sub or not)consciously suppressed many, nearly all, of my emotional reactions in the interest of "mind over matter" and an Aristotilean concept of base emotions vs. a developed intellect that is "in control." To subscribe to this mindset blindly is to ignore nearly ALL the progress made in behavioral science and the associated philosophy. I haven't swung all the way to the other side, I'm extremely wary of all the "dopamine hit" psuedo-science out there. But at least in my personal experience, "allowing myself the permission to feel the emotions" (in the words of my therapist) before trying to wrangle them and force them into a constructive form has been very beneficial for my self-esteem and ability to think about myself and self-improvement.

5

Raodoar t1_j7mmvkl wrote

Yeah whoever wrote this article hasn't got a clue lol.

1