Stoicism as a philosophy has great value as a way of fighting toxic managers such as double high
authoritarians (quintessential kiss-up, kick down personalities) and even more dangerous corporate psychopaths.
It also provides you an additional moral justification for quitting even if your financial circumstances
are not that great and staying this way despite hardships until you find something better.
Admiral James Stockdale, who was shot down over North Vietnam, held as a prisoner and repeatedly
tortured was deeply influenced by Epictetus after being introduced to his works while at Stanford University.
As he parachuted down from his plane, he reportedly said to himself "I'm leaving the world of technology
and entering the world of Epictetus!" The same words can be repeated by
IT specialist who are over 50 and became unemployed.
Stoics teach us that not everything is under our control, not it should be.
There are some things we have control over (our judgments, our own mental state)
and some things that we do not (external processes and objects, whims of the
society, like neoliberalism). Much of our unhappiness is caused by confusing
these two categories: thinking we have control over something that ultimately we
do not. The wisdom is the ability to distinguish things that we can control and
those that we can not. This stoic attitude was aptly
captured by American theologian
Reinhold Niebuhr[
(1892–1971) in his famous
Serenity Prayer:
Loss of job is a hit comparable in its effects with the dissolution of the marriage or a death or
a jail term of a close relative. In other words it is a emotional crash, traumatic event with long term
consequences. Among them:
- Lack of confidence. That is especially typical
for those who are not in a meaningful relationship.
We fear abandonment and this may lead to isolation. The
entire situation looks messy and, quite frankly, terribly
sad.
- Fear of disclosing your situation.
This is somewhat similar to having mental disease. It is
something we want to hide. Of course we do not tell everyone.
You don’t shake a person’s hand and
openly state:
“Hi! I’m Nick and I am unemployed now” .
- Fear of the future. Everyone grapples
with the future: we wonder what it will look like, if we’ll
be happy, if we'll be healthy. It’s different when
you are over 50, is unemployed and have 2 kids, a
dog and a nice house. And a mortgage not paid off.
In this situation, the future can be scary.
In those circumstances, we often cannot predict how even
our own future level of stability and functioning. Add
to this another person(s), and things became even
more difficult. Add to this children, and things tend to
be quite painful.
Stoicism is a philosophy of life that can help is those circumstances.
It directly address the problem of loss of self-esteem.
The key idea of stoicism is that "personal virtue and courage in
adversity is sufficient for maintaining high
self-esteem". Which asserts human dignity in the ability to fight the
external, often hostile world. Stoicism teaches the development of self-control
and fortitude as a means of overcoming destructive emotions such desperation,
lust and greed; the philosophy holds that the ability to see clearly your
circumstances and fight them to the extent you can is an achievement in
itself, toward which we all should strive. No matter what is the outcome
of this fight. The Stoics taught that we fail far more often than we succeed,
that to be human is to be fearful, selfish, and angry far more often than we’d
like. But they also taught a realistic way to be less fearful, less selfish, and
less angry.
Stoics also strive "to be free from anger, envy, and jealousy"
(The Stoic ideal of dispassion
is accepted to this day as the perfect moral state by the
Eastern Orthodox Church).
They teach to accept everybody as "equals, because all men alike are products of nature."
In their view the
external differences which are considered of such primary importance in
Western civilization, such as rank and wealth should not be primary criteria of judging others, not they
should the primary goals in your life, or of primary importance in social relationships.
In the words
of Epictetus (note that the word happiness here has slightly different meaning
then in regular English language), you can be "sick and yet happy, in peril and yet happy, dying and yet happy, in
exile and happy, in disgrace and happy..." If we assume that "happiness"
means here the ability to maintain high self-esteem this quote might
be more understandable. Stoic ethics stressed the rule: "Follow where reason leads."
One must therefore strive to be free of the distortions caused by "passions", bearing in mind that the
ancient meaning of "passion" was more close to contemporary words
"emotions", "anguish" or "suffering", that is, "passive reaction to external events,
which is different from the modern use of the word. In other words you need
the ability to dispassionately and persistently "stay the course" after you had
chosen it with all the wisdom you are capable of; it is
about "who controls whom.": either you control your your emotions, or your
emotions control you.
The four cardinal virtues of the Stoic philosophy
are: wisdom (Sophia), courage (Andreia), justice (Dikaiosyne), and
temperance (Sophrosyne). The ability to fight in adversarial
conditions considered to be a virtue. This stoical sentiment
with more stress on desire to fight the adversity to the bitter end despite
uneven odds was expressed in old Russian song
Varyag (the
cruiser that
became became famous for her crew's stoicism at the Battle of Chemulpo
Bay when she alone faced the whole Japanese fleet)
All to the upper deck and man your battle posts,
The last battle for our ship is coming
Our proud "Varyag" will not surrender to the enemy,
And none of us want their mercy.
Stoics teach that a person should strive to be just
and moral in an unjust and immoral world (see also
Reinhold Niebuhr's book
Moral Man and Immoral Society).
"Moral Man and Immoral Society", by
Reinhold Neibhur, was published during the years of the Great Depression. In
this work, Reinhold asserts the requirement of politics in the fight for
social justice because of the depravity of human nature, that is, the
arrogance of human beings. Neibur sees the flaws of the mind when it comes
to solving social injustice by moral and wise means, "since reason is always
the servant of interest in a social situation". This is his judgment of
liberal Christian doctrine, which fully believes in the intellectual ability
of humans to make themselves be good, and he admits this vulnerability as
our existence. In other words, Neibhur accurately saw the evil of systems in
society and its empty endeavors to better individuals and their
insufficiencies.Neibhur warns us about adopting "herd mentalities."
According to him,
individuals are morally able to think of the interests of others above
themselves. That is, human beings can be kind. Societies, however, find it
essentially impossible to manage intelligently the competing interests of
subgroups. Societies, he contends, effectively gather up only individuals'
selfish impulses, not their abilities for charitable thoughtfulness toward
others.
According to Niebuhr, this group egocentricity of
individuals-in-groups is immensely powerful. "In every human group there is
less reason to guide and to check impulse, less capacity for
self-transcendence, less ability to comprehend the needs of others,
therefore more unrestrained egoism than the individuals, who compose the
group, reveal in their personal relationships".
Avoidance of fight for justice is
viewed by stoics a rejection of one's social
duty. Stoic philosophical and spiritual practices included contemplation of hardship,
training
to value the life as it is (similar to some forms of
Eastern meditation),
and daily reflection on everyday problems and possible solutions (by keeping a diary). Practicing
Stoicism is an active process of preparation to overcome hardships that
your destiny could send upon you with honor and courage
(and viewing hardships as a test that God send to evaluate a person). As well as acquiring deeper self-knowledge
and the knowledge of the society in the process.
In his Meditations
(which were not written for print, but as a personal diary)
Marcus Aurelius defines several such practices. For example, in Book II.I:
Say to yourself in the early morning: I shall meet today ungrateful, violent, treacherous, envious,
uncharitable men. All of the ignorance of real good and ill... I can neither be harmed by any of
them, for no man will involve me in wrong, nor can I be angry with my kinsman, or hate him; for we
have come into the world to work together...
It was stoicism that gave mankind the idea if equality of all men. In
this situation it applies to those who suffer from the long term unemployment.
Below are some quotations from major Stoic philosophers, selected to illustrate common Stoic beliefs:
Epictetus:
- "Man is disturbed not by things, but by the views he takes of them." (Ench.
5)
- "If, therefore, any be unhappy, let him remember that he is unhappy by reason of himself alone."
(iii.24.2)
Marcus Aurelius:
- "Get rid of the judgment, get rid of the 'I am hurt,' you are rid of the hurt itself." (viii.40)
- "Everything is right for me that is right for you, O Universe. Nothing for me is too early or
too late that comes in due time for you. Everything is fruit to me that your seasons bring, O Nature.
From you are all things, in you are all things, to you all things return." (iv.23)
- "If you work at that which is before you, following right reason seriously, vigorously, calmly,
without allowing anything else to distract you, but keeping your divine part pure, as if you were
bound to give it back immediately; if you hold to this, expecting nothing, but satisfied to live
now according to nature, speaking heroic truth in every word that you utter, you will live happy.
And there is no man able to prevent this." (iii.12)
- "How ridiculous and how strange is to be surprised at anything that happens in life!" (xii.13)
- "Outward things cannot touch the soul, not in the least degree; nor have they admission to the
soul, nor can they turn or move the soul; but the soul turns and moves itself alone." (v.19)
- "Because your own strength is unequal to the task, do not assume that it is beyond the powers
of man; but if anything is within the powers and province of man, believe that it is within your
own compass also" (vi.19)
- "Or is it your reputation that's bothering you? But look at how soon we're all forgotten. The
abyss of endless time that swallows it all. The emptiness of all those applauding hands. The people
who praise us — how capricious they are, how arbitrary. And the tiny region in which it all takes place.
The whole earth a point in space—and most of it uninhabited. How many people there will be to admire
you, and who they are." (iv.3)
Seneca the Younger:
- "The point is, not how long you live, but how nobly you live." (Ep.
101.15)
- "That which Fortune has not given, she cannot take away." (Ep.
59.18)
- "Let Nature deal with matter, which is her own, as she pleases; let us be cheerful and brave
in the face of everything, reflecting that it is nothing of our own that perishes." (De
Provid. v.8)
- "Virtue is nothing else than right reason." (Ep.
66.32)
While you can always read classic, a rather good introduction to Stoicism can be found in A Guide to the Good Life by William B. Irvine.
Here are some Amazon reviews of the book:
One of the great fears many of us face is that despite all our effort
and striving, we will discover at the end that we have wasted our life. In A Guide
to the Good Life, William B. Irvine plumbs the wisdom of Stoic philosophy, one of the most popular
and successful schools of thought in ancient Rome, and shows how its insight and advice are still
remarkably applicable to modern lives.
In A Guide to the Good Life, Irvine offers a refreshing presentation of Stoicism, showing how
this ancient philosophy can still direct us toward a better life. Using the psychological insights
and the practical techniques of the Stoics, Irvine offers a roadmap for anyone seeking
to avoid the feelings of chronic dissatisfaction that plague so many of us. Irvine
looks at various Stoic techniques for attaining tranquility and shows how to put these techniques
to work in our own life.
As he does so, he describes his own experiences practicing Stoicism and offers valuable first-hand
advice for anyone wishing to live better by following in the footsteps of these ancient philosophers.
Readers learn how to minimize worry, how to let go of the past and focus
our efforts on the things we can control, and how to deal with insults, grief, old age, and the distracting
temptations of fame and fortune.
We learn from Marcus Aurelius the importance of prizing only things
of true value, and from Epictetus we learn how to be more content with what we have.
Finally, A Guide to the Good Life shows readers how to become thoughtful observers of their own
life. If we watch ourselves as we go about our daily business and later reflect on what we saw,
we can better identify the sources of distress and eventually avoid that
pain in our life. By doing this, the Stoics thought, we can hope to attain a truly
joyful life.
David B Richman (Mesilla Park, NM USA)
The Best Introduction to an Ancient Philosophy, December 23, 2008 See all my reviews
A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy (Hardcover)
I first read Marcus Aurelius' "Meditations" while flying to the eastern United States for a
scientific meeting. It was during a rather difficult period in my life and I had picked up on
"Meditations" because of a mention of this work by Edwin Way Teale in "Near Horizons" as a book
he turned to in times of trouble.
I was not disappointed by these insightful notes written for his own use nearly 2000 years
ago by the Roman Emperor and Stoic philosopher. It was thus that I was primed to read William
B. Irvine's "A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy." This is one of those books
that can be really life changing, if the reader is ready for it.
Irvine briefly discusses the history of Stoic philosophy and its relationship to other philosophies
in ancient Greece and Rome. He concentrates most of the book, however, on the Stoics of the Roman
Empire, namely Seneca, Gaius Musonius Rufus, Epictetus and of course, Marcus Aurelius. After his
historical review Irvine spends some time on the practical aspects of Stoicism, including
- negative visualization (visualizing how your life could be worse),
- dichotomy of control (what we can and cannot control),
- fatalism (about the past and present, not the future),
- self-denial (putting off pleasure so as to appreciate it more when you have it),
- duty (what we owe to others),
- social relations (how we relate to others),
- insults (how to react to them),
- grief (how to deal with loss),
- anger (how to turn it to humor),
- personal values (how to deal with fame and fortune, or the lack thereof),
- old age (how to deal with the aging process),
- and dying (how to prepare for this certainty).
The last part of the book is devoted to the practice of Stoicism in the modern world, with
both its pluses and minuses.
Although I would have to practice a modified Stoicism (I doubt that most of us would like to
sleep even occasionally on a board or give up sex except for procreation), there is much of Stoicism
that we can use in the modern world.
Unlike the Cynics who slept on boards all the time and generally followed ascetic practices,
Stoics wanted to enjoy life and followed something akin to the Middle
Way of Buddhism. This attitude could certainly be of use to counter the worst of
this "me first" society of rampant consumerism. In truth you really cannot take it with you when
you die and to act like you can is the height of folly.
This book is a fascinating exposition of Stoic philosophy and its possible uses in the present
day. The current economic collapse and other disasters of modern living could be a fertile ground
for a revival of Stoic ideas. I also recommend it as a refreshing antidote for the hectic modern
world in general. Take what is useful, and leave the rest, but read it if you would live deliberately
and thus be free!
Ismael Ghalimi (Palo Alto, CA)
Stoicism Redux, February 20, 2009Once in a while, one comes across an idea so profound
that it has the power to change one's life. So was the case for me yesterday on my way to Columbus,
OH. Feeling like Christopher Columbus (re)discovering the Americas, I re-discovered the ancient
Stoic philosophy through the reading of A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy
by William B Irvine's, thanks to a program I recently listened to on KPFA.
I had never read the philosophy of Zeno of Citium, Epitectus, Seneca, or Marcus Aurelius, but
I knew in my heart that such a liberating yet deceivingly simple way of living must have been
devised before.
I just did not know where to look for it. And much like the author, I had been recently intrigued
by Zen Buddhism, but could not fully relate to its esoteric nature.
Classic Stoicism preaches a way of life that can bring tranquility and joy to anyone. Through
simple psychological techniques such as negative visualization, dichotomy (/trichotomy) of control,
or internalization of goals -- all brilliantly described in Irivine's book --
one can suppress negative feelings such as anxiety, fear, or frustration,
while learning how to better deal with insult or grief, and why fame and luxury should not be
looked for (more on this later).
While reading through the 336 pages of Irivine's book, I was amazed at how natural the overall
philosophy felt to me. Its guiding principles were some of the very few absolute values that I
could genuinely call mine, and many of its techniques I had discovered myself over time. In the
author's words, I must be a "congenital Stoic." Nevertheless, I had never been able to spell out
such a coherent system on my own, nor had I come across anyone who had until now.
Reading through the book's last chapters, and especially Chapter Twenty-One -- Stoicism Reconsidered
-- I experienced an exhilarating rush of wholesomeness, being confronted for the first time to
a coherent philosophy of life. Religious minds would say I got a revelation.
Being agnostic myself, I would call it an epiphany, and it came in the form of Irvine's proof
that Stoicism was a "correct philosophy of life," not by referring to Zeus as the ancient Stoics
did, but to evolutionary theory in general, and evolutionary psychology in particular. Not being
a professional philosopher myself, I cannot adequately criticize Irvine's argumentation, but it
made sense to me. In fact, I would even go as far as challenging the author's excessive modesty,
and suggest that he actually delivered a modern proof for Stoicism's overall correctness.
To say the book convinced me is an understatement. It converted me, not only to the doctrine,
but to the scholastic approach of ancient philosophy. And as Seneca put it, "I do not bind myself
to some particular one of the Stoic masters; I, too, have the right to form an opinion." (Seneca,
"On the Happy Life," III.2). So let me offer some suggestions as to how Stoicism could be extended
to benefit from more recent discoveries.
- First, the notion of "duty," which ancient Stoics justify by
the mere fact that we are social creatures and that we all mutually benefit from virtuous social
behavior, should be further developed. In order for it to become more acceptable,
its justification should go beyond the benefits of harmonious inter-personal relationships,
and include a notion best described as statistical Karma: if more
people act benevolently with others in a pass-it-forward kind of way, the world at large will
become a better place, and we will all benefit from it indirectly.
- Second, the notion that fame after death should not be set as a goal, while advisable at
first, is unnecessarily challenging for those who do not believe in life after death.
Instead, I believe that one's goal could (should) be to create
a lasting legacy,
- either by passing the virtuous of a Stoic life to one's
descendants,
- or by making positive contributions to mankind, small or large.
Such a legacy can reasonably be considered as some form of life after death by agnostic
philosophers, or a component of life after death by their religious counterparts.
Furthermore, because such a legacy will be judged by those who survive us after our passing,
setting its creation as a primary life goal should not expose us to the usual traps of fame
seeking. Last but not least, it should be obvious to anyone that such a legacy
should be a positive one, as in one that will benefit those who survive us and for generations
to come, as opposed to a free entry into history books for reason of crime against humanity.
- Third, I believe that the Stoic reaction to insult (offense might even be
a more appropriate term) should be extended in order to include what is possibly the
most powerful discoveries of the past two millennia: Christian forgiveness. Before
explaining what I mean by that, let me give some personal background: my mother was born in
France and received a Catholic education. My father was born in Algeria and was raised as a
Muslim. I was born in France thirty-five years ago and grew up in a perfectly atheist environment,
like many kids of this time in post-68, pre-socialist France.
Nevertheless, I later developed a keen interest for Christianity and its principles, originally
through the watching of movies from David Lynch. Fire Walk with Me gave me an intuitive understanding
of the notion of the original sin and its repercussions on our collective psyche as members of
a Judeo-Christian community, while The Straight Story offered a moving demonstration of the power
of forgiveness.
While I view the concept of original sin as fundamentally anti-Stoic, I
consider the notion of forgiveness as the ultimate exercise of Stoic
mastery. The reason for this is simple: on one hand, ignoring an insult or offense
is neutral at best, even slightly negative as the author would admit, for it creates frustration
on the side of the offender. On the other hand, genuine forgiveness, although tremendously challenging
for the one who received the offense and arguably rare, has the power to deliver a transforming
epiphany to the offender.
In other words, forgiveness could be the ultimate act of Neostoicism,
and is positively viral by nature, therefore should be practiced whenever possible.
I am now sitting on a plane on my way back home. Practicing negative visualization, I realize
how fortunate I am that the previous three legs of my trip were completed without any incidents.
And while I contemplate the prospect of the plane crashing before we make it back to SFO, I know
in my heart that I am living a good life now, at this very moment (carpe diem). I realize that
I shared through these lines more than I expected to, and that it does not make me a proper stealth
Stoic as advocated in Irvine's book, but I also know that many of the ideas he brought back to
life were born through Socratic debate. I simply wish to contribute to the discussion, with as
much innocence that my ignorance will afford me.
Tonight, I found my way (in a Taoist sense), and this brings me joy.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Comment
Comments (2)
Jon Morris
(Binghamton, NY USA)
New Life for an Ancient Art, January 2, 2009
This review is from:
A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy (Hardcover)
For the most part, reading contemporary philosophy is a bit like watching
a rabid dog chase its tail: round and round it turns, growling here, nipping there,
until exhausted it collapses in the same place it began, upon a sorry bed of deconstructed words,
free-floating signifiers "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Ironically, philosophy has perhaps never been more sorely needed than now, and those who are
skeptical of facile religious answers, and distrustful of scientific "theories of everything"
(as String Theory claims to be), find themselves seemingly alone to contemplate life's most demanding
questions. In this bleak scenario, William Irvine's book represents a timely exception, filling
in a void and lighting a candle in an otherwise dark library.
Irvine's book works on many levels. In part, it is a manifesto, a call to arms
-- an insistence that philosophy address life's most important questions -- about life, death,
responsibility, etc.; in part, it is an attempt to revitalize interest in the offerings of a philosophical
school that has been wrongly neglected, and as such it serves as a great introduction to its most
important thinkers; and in part it is a guide, a personal look at how philosophy, particularly
stoic philosophy, can empower a person.
The book will appeal to a large audience; indeed, the title and subtitle could easily be reversed.
That is, one could read this book as a guide to the good life (without the ten-step pop-psychology),
or, one might just as easily read it as an overview of "the ancient art of joy," a look at how
the ancients dealt with problems similar to those which we face today, and how they found meaning
and happiness despite (or even thanks to) them.
The Stoics have much to teach us in part because they lived in a period not unlike our own:
as Rollo May, the existentialist psychologist, points out, "After the Golden Age of classical
Greece, when the myths and symbols gave the citizen armor against inner conflict and self-doubts,
we come down to the third and second centuries B.C.". The old myths
and political ideals were collapsing and giving rise to doubt, anxiety, angst.
This would continue for several centuries and carry over to the Romans. Just like they had gladiator
sports, we have reality TV. This, of course, is a gross oversimplification, but it is worth mentioning
because the Stoics, much more so than the representatives of current philosophical trends, provide
us with tools to face the challenges of our time.
The book is divided into four sections, the richest of which are the second, "Stoic Psychological
Techniques," and the third, "Stoic Advice." The table of contents is available, so I won't list
the chapters. Suffice it to say, they address life's concerns--grief, anger, death and aging,
personal values, etc.... Where Irvine's book really distinguishes itself is in its ability to
synthesize the ideas of the Stoics into a coherent and orderly guide. Anyone who has read Marcus
Aurelius has certainly found much to treasure, but as the book was a sort of diary, it jumps about,
and so his thoughts on the nature of the universe, for example, are peppered throughout. Irvine
does an excellent job of sifting through these rich texts and compiling the insights of the Stoics
according to themes, in a way that is immediately accessible and stimulating.
In the final section of his book, "Stoicism for Modern Lives," Irvine is tempered but explicit
in his critique of modern psychology and counseling. Stoicism teaches us to face and overcome
life's greatest challenges; often, contemporary counseling does not.
Instead, it encourages victimhood or prescribes a feel-good drug. Here, too, TV is a good indicator.
With thousands of veterans returning from the Middle East with PTSD, the book is again a timely
corrective to our contemporary milieu. "It would be bad enough," Irvine says,
"if grief counseling were simply ineffective. In some cases, though,
such counseling seems to intensify and prolong people's grief ... it is the psychological equivalent
of picking at the scab on a wound." Here, too, Stoicism represents an intelligent
and ethical alternative.
Reading Irvine's book is a pleasure: jargon-free, personal and intelligent, it is an example
of what philosophy can be and ought to be. Readers will also find the suggested reading list and
bibliography helpful. Highly recommended.
Grodge "Kalamazoo Post" (Kalamazoo, MI USA)
The author, a philosophy professor, appropriately subtitles his book The Ancient Art of Stoic
Joy.
This is unlike any book I've read and presents philosophy in an entirely practical way. Sure,
we've all read the standard Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas, but Irvine begins by putting the study
of philosophy into context. The ancient Greeks were the very first members of Western Civilization
to have been afforded the luxury of time to actually think about the big questions of existence,
happiness and metaphysics.
As such they sat down and codified the nature of the human condition and it's relationship
with the natural and the divine. Irvine points out that a leap occurred in human understanding
in the 6th century BCE and over the intervening centuries philosophers had every intention of
solving the mystery of why we were here and what makes us happy and fulfilled. To me, they were
like the Google and Apple engineers of their day.
Various systems, or schools, were developed: the Stoics, Aristotle's Academy, the Cynics, the
Epicureans, etc. They competed for followers by presenting true philosophies for living and not
just presenting ivory tower psychobabble. Irvine concentrates on the Stoics and points out that
the goal of this system was to eliminate or mitigate negative emotions,
only in the modern vernacular has stoicism (small S) come to mean the elimination of all emotion.
In jargon-free prose, Irvine presents a readable synopsis of philosophy and puts it into a context
that makes it real.
Irvine says that humans are programmed to seek pleasure and this
is a constantly increasing urge that saps our enjoyment of the world. He terms
this adaptive hedonism: that no matter how comfortable or pleasurable our lives become, we soon
adapt and need more, more, more. Without breaking this cycle of ever-increasing hedonism, we become
miserable.
Buddhists would call this attachment. Irvine presents psychological techniques developed by
the first Stoics that are designed to increase our satisfaction with
our current situation.
The first technique is negative visualization. The ancients would instruct their students to
visualize, or imagine, the very worst case scenario or outcome. No matter how gruesome or disturbing,
we should picture losing everything: our family, our job, our home, our health.
This prepares us for the absolute worst and when these negative situations
do not materialize, we gain more satisfaction and gratitude for the things we have.
I would note that this is anathema to the usual teaching of modern Western society which instructs
us to think positive! and avoid negative thoughts. Irvine points out that this attitude only increases
our desire for more, and decreases our enjoyment of what we have.
Irvine admits that negative visualization seems counter-intuitive, but such active techniques
are important especially in kids who can become jaded as they compete for the latest trendy consumer
items or experiences. Just as a near-death catastrophe, such as a car accident or illness, can
temporarily jolt someone out of their jadedness and put things into a cleaner perspective, negative
visualization can do the same thing-- only it's actually more effective because it is done regularly,
consciously and with discipline.
There have been several famous Stoics, including Zeno, Epictetus, Cicero, Seneca and the Marcus
Aurelius. The Greek schools fell out of favor for various reasons as Christianity rose to political
prominence in the first centuries after Christ.
The Stoics also advocate a program of voluntary discomfort,
such as fasting or wearing too little clothing in the cold, or making other physical sacrifices--
a practice which is done by many if not most religions in some manner.
The Stoics taught that such practices have positive consequences on levels of happiness
and satisfaction in life, and it also prepares us for the times when such sacrifices are necessary.
As such, we become more confident that we could withstand hard times, if they ever
were to come our way, thus increasing our joy and satisfaction in our current plentiful situation.
Irvine also points out the power of self-deprecation, self-denial, concentrating only on factors
that we can truly control (very few as it turns out), and eschewing worry about things we cannot
change. The ultimate goal of the practice of Stoicism is to increase tranquility in our lives
... and to increase joy. Some individuals have natural tendencies toward Stoicism, while others
would fight these techniques and view them as counter-productive or silly.
Irvine points out that most, if not all of Stoicism, can be perfectly consistent with other
religions and can easily be incorporated into Christianity, Buddhism and other faiths.
Personally, I tend toward many of the Stoic ideals already, and always have. Reading this book
was refreshing... to know that some of my crazy behaviors have actually been codified by ancient
philosophers and that more modern psychological techniques describe some of my behaviors;
negative visualization does not lead to pessimism, and has been invaluable
to me in my job. Irvine gives examples of meditations and practices that follow this philosophy--
and it is way to live your life.
True happiness does come from living within your means, knowing
your limitations and practicing self-control, and as Irvine says, the most amazing-- truly amazing--
thing is that sometimes out of the blue a burst of unrestrained joy will come when you least expect
it.
My review has not done the book justice. Irvine is a gifted writer and philosopher and this
book gets my highest recommendation.
cross-posted at Kalamazoo Post: kalamazoopost.blogspot.com/2011/05/guide-to-good-life-by-william-irvine.html
- [Dec 18, 2016] Ancient principles of Stoicism for the modern world ( Dec 18, 2016 | www.sott.net )
- [Dec 18, 2016] A good dose of Stoic philosophy is necessary for coping with troubling times ( Dec 18, 2016 | www.sott.net )
- [Dec 07, 2016] Stoicism Buddhism-mindfulness Stoicism Today ( Dec 07, 2016 | exeter.ac.uk )
- [Dec 07, 2016] Buddhism, Epicureanism, and Stoicism ( Dec 07, 2016 | rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com )
- [Apr 20, 2016] Can a person become a stoic in this era? ( www.quora.com )
- [Apr 20, 2016] How to Be a Stoic ( The New York Times )
- [Apr 20, 2016] What is Stoicism ( Stoicism Today )
- [Apr 20, 2016] Five Reasons Why Stoicism Matters Today ( Sep 28, 2012 | Forbes )
- [Nov 05, 2015] What I Learned From Taking 30 Ice Baths in 30 Days By Dale Davidson ( Oct 22, 2015 | Observer )
Marcus Aurelius (121-180CE) was emperor of Rome at the height of its
influence and power. One can only imagine the pressures that a person in his
position might have experienced. The military might of the empire was
massive, and much could happen in the fog of war. Conspiracies ran rampant
through the imperial court. What might be lurking right around the corner
seemed unforeseeable. Economies flourished and fell into ruin. Barbarians at
the Gates! And if Marcus was stressed out, how much more might the ordinary
Roman suffer from this uncertainty?
But, as we start 2015, is Marcus's world really all that different from
ours?
Today,
global financial markets seem to move of their own accord as
life savings vanish
. Conflict around the world and violence at home
seems hopelessly incomprehensible for most of us
. US
elections have seen some of their lowest voter turnout in recent memory, and
the country seems
more polarized
than ever. The constant
flow of information from the media and internet can make one feel small and
ineffectual.
If all these stresses push one into a state of despair, or at least a sense
of futility, maybe we can follow Marcus' advice and turn to philosophy. In
particular, the philosophy of Stoicism.
The principles of Stoicism
Stoicism was founded in Athens around 300 BCE, and had its zenith during the
Roman Imperial period of the 1st and 2nd centuries CE, in the writings of
such thinkers as Seneca and Epictetus, as well as Marcus Aurelius.
Stoicism promised that a good life is available to us even in the face of
overwhelming circumstances, which might partly explain its attractiveness to
even the mighty emperor of the most powerful empire of its time.
Central to this life, according to the Stoics, is a certain set of cognitive
approaches to what goes on in the world around us.
First, we must recognize that the vast majority of circumstances and events
are out of our control. What is in our control is how we react to them.
Thus, what matters to having a good life is not what happens to us, but
rather how we deal with it.
The second major point is that those things under our control - - our
thoughts - are both the source of our suffering, and something that we can
learn to control. When we learn to have the appropriate reactions and
thoughts, we can then live a happy and fruitful life even in the face of
enormous difficulties.
In the words of Epictetus:
If you think that things naturally enslaved are free or that things not
your own are your own, you will be thwarted, miserable, and upset, and
will blame both gods and men. But if you think that only what is yours is
yours, and that what is not your own is, just as it is, not your own,
then no one will ever coerce you, no one will hinder you, you will blame
no one, you will not accuse anyone, you will not do a single thing
unwillingly, you will have no enemies, and no one will harm you, because
you will not be harmed at all.
Stoicism applied to contemporary life
A growing number of deeply thoughtful people, from scholars to practicing
therapists, are following Marcus' advice today. For example, a group at the
University of Essex in the UK has developed
"Stoic Week," and produced guidelines for anyone to participate in stoic
practices for a week and share their experiences.
Having just concluded its third iteration, this experiment in stoic living
has indicated that stoicism may in fact be a helpful tool in modern life.
Preliminary results from the first stoic week suggest that the majority
of participants had significant reductions in negative feelings associated
with stress and anxiety, etc.
The practice of stoicism is also now being pursued in the US. The University
of Wyoming hosts a Stoic Camp, first run in May of 2014, putting students
and faculty together to live by stoic principles on a 24 hour basis.
Stoic camp in Wyoming
Based in the Snowy Range outside of Centennial, WY, the initial camp hosted
only students from Wyoming, but further iterations will accept students from
other universities.
On a typical day, campers rise early in order to practice meditation based
in the ancient texts and use this practice to help structure the rest of the
day. Each morning and afternoon, the camp breaks into groups to read and
discuss portions of Marcus's
Meditations
and consider how they
reflected his stoic values and advice. By repeating this process, these
ideas can become part of our cognitive equipment. Campers also engaged in
outdoor activities to emphasize our affinity with nature and the universe as
a whole.
© Robert S. Colter
Engaging with philosophy in Wyoming.
Some of the campers were deeply affected by their experience. One camper
told me, "Stoic camp was a continual reminder that so little is under our
control, and also that there is no reason to stress over it. The repetition
made this realization longer lasting, and gave us tools to use in living
life in the face of stressful situations."
So, these cognitive realizations and tools may help us to live a happy,
fruitful life. As the Stoics emphasize, however, such a
life cannot
consist in making the world bend to our will
. Rather it must
consist in making ourselves more fit to live well in the world as it is.
As Marcus says, "Do not act as if you had ten thousand years to live ...
while you have life in you, while you still can, make yourself good."
Comment:
As a follow up on Marcus's quote, read what George
I. Gurdjieff wrote about The Last Hour of Life:
Imagine, that you have only a few minutes, maybe an hour left to live;
somehow you have discovered exactly when you will die. What would you do
with this precious hour of your stay on Earth? Would you be able to
complete all your things in this last hour, do you have a conscious idea
about how to do it?
And letting go your last breath would you feel satisfaction from knowing
that you have done everything possible in this life to fulfill that you
are constantly present, always vibrating, always waiting, like the son is
waiting for the father-sailor? In the manifested world everything has its
beginning and its end. In the Real World everything is always present and
one beautiful day you will be allowed to forget everything and leave the
world "forever".
Freedom is worth a million times more than [political] liberation. The
free man, even in slavery, remains a master of himself. For example, if I
give you something, let's say, a car, in which there is no fuel, the car
cannot move. Your car needs a special fuel, but it is only you who is
able to define what kind of fuel is needed and where to get it.
You have to define yourself how to digest my ideas to make them yours, so
that they belong only to you. Your car cannot work on the same fuel my
car is working on. I suggest to you only the primary material. You have
to get from it what you can use. So, more bravely, sit down at the
steering wheel.
The organic life is very fragile. The planetary body can die at any
moment. It is always one step from death. And if you could manage to live
one more day, it is only a chance accidentally given to you by nature. If
you will be able to live even one more hour, you can consider yourself to
be a lucky person. From the moment of conception we are living on
borrowed time.
Living in this world you have to feel death each second, so settle all
your life affairs, even in your last hour. But how can anyone know
exactly his last hour? For the sense of security make up your things with
nature and yourself in every hour given to you, then you will never be
met unprepared. The man has to be taught this starting from the
[esoteric] school: how to breath, to eat, to move and to die right. This
has to become a part of an educational programme. In this programme it is
necessary to include the teaching about how to realize the presence of
"I" and also how to establish consciousness.
Question: How to act if you do not feel that there is something
unfinished?
Gurdjieff answered after a pause. He took a deep breath and replied:
Ask yourself who will be in difficulty if you die like a dog. At the
moment of death you have to be wholly aware of yourself and feel that you
have done everything possible to use all, within your abilities, in this
life which was given to you.
Now you do not know much about yourself. But with each day you dig deeper
and deeper into this bag of bones and start knowing more and more
details. Day by day you will be finding out what you should have done and
what you have to re-do among the things you have done. A real man is one
who could take from life everything that was valuable in it, and say:
"And now I can die". We have to try to live your lives so that we could
say any day: "Today I can die and not be sorry about anything".
Never spend fruitlessly the last hour of your life because it can become
the most important hour for you. If you use it wrongly, you may be sorry
about it later. This sincere excitement that you feel now can become for
you a powerful source of the force that can prepare you for perfect
death. Knowing that the next hour can become the last one for you, absorb
the impressions which it will bring to you as a real gourmet. When lady
death will call you, be prepared, always. The master knows how to take
from each tasty piece the last bit of the most valuable. Learn to be the
master of your life.
When I was young I learned to prepare fragrances. I learned to extract
from life its essence, its most subtle qualities. Search in everything
the most valuable, learn to separate the fine from the coarse. One who
has learned how to extract the essence, the most important from each
moment of life, has reached a sense on quality.
He is able to do with the world something that can not be done by an
aboriginal.
It could be that in the last moments of your life you will not have the
choice where and with whom to be, but you will have a choice to decide
how fully you will live them. The ability to take the valuable from life
- is the same as to take from the food, air and the impressions the
substances needed to build up your higher bodies. If you want to take
from your life the most valuable for yourself, it has to be for the good
of the higher; for yourself it is enough to leave just a little. To work
on yourself for the good of others is a smart way to receive the best
from life for yourself. If you will not be satisfied with the last hour
of your life, you will not be happy about the whole of your life. To die
means to come through something which is impossible to repeat again. To
spend your precious time in nothing means to deprive yourself the
opportunity to extract from life the most valuable.
In this world, to live life through, from the beginning to the end -
means another aspect of the Absolute. All greatest philosophers were
carefully preparing for the last hour of their life. And now I will give
you the exercise to prepare for the last hour on the Earth. Try not to
misinterpret any word from the given exercise.
The Exercise
Look back at the hour that has passed, as if it was the last hour for you
on the earth and that you have just acknowledged that you have died. Ask
yourself, were you satisfied at that hour?
And now reanimate yourself again and set up the aim for yourself. In the
next hour (if you are lucky to live one more) try to extract from life a
little more than you did in the last hour. Define, where and when you
should have been more aware, and where you should have put more inner
fire.
And now open your eyes wider, and by this I mean - open more
possibilities for yourself, be a little more brave, than you were in the
previous hour. Since you know that this is your last hour and you have
nothing to loose, try to gain some bravery - at least now. Of course, you
don't have to be silly about it.
Get to know yourself better, look at your machine as if from the outside.
Now, when you are dying, there is no sense to keep your reputation and
your prestige.
And now onward, until the real last hour, aspire with persistence to
receive the most you can from life that is of value, develop your
intuition. Take just a few moments each hour to watch at the hour that
passed, without judgment, and then tune yourself to extracting more from
the following hour.
If we look at each hour like at a separate life unit, you can try to do
as much as you can to use every unit totally. Force yourself and find the
way to make the next hour much more than the one before, but also be
aware that you have taken care of the debts you collected till now.
Increase the self-sensing and self-knowledge of yourself, and also
increase the ability to master yourself, this will change the work of
your machine, which is always out of your control. And these abilities
can become the indication of the real changes. And it is absolutely
unimportant what the machine is thinking about this.
...To live the rest of your life rehearsing your death hour by hour - is
not at all pathological. None can receive more from life than the cancer
patient, who knows approximately when he will die. And since he already
recognized how he wishes to spend the rest of his life, he will not have
to make the total change in it, but he will be able to go somewhere,
where he always wished to go, but would not do it in other circumstances.
The man who knows that he will die soon, will try to use to the maximum
every hour of the rest of his life. This is exactly what Christ meant
when he said that the last days will come soon - the days before the Last
Judgment. We are all standing in front of the Judge, but it is not the
others who are judging us, but we ourselves do the last estimation of our
life. We do not have to fail the most important examination, where the
most serious judge is ourselves.
Each moment, taken alone, represents the particle of the eternal
Creation. Therefore each moment we can extract the most subtle
substances, that we can call "the essence of life".
Imagine yourself the substance "air" or the substance "impressions".
Finally, draw in your mind the substance "moment". Yes, even the moments
of time are the substances.
If we will be able to extract the finest substances from the coarser,
sooner or later we will have to
pay for it. This law is called The Law of Balance. That is why we will
learn how to pay immediately for those that we receive from life. Only
then we will not have any debts. To pay immediately - this is what is
called "real doing". "To do" - is to think, to feel, to act, but "real
doing" - is to pay immediately.
To do - may mean only one thing: to extract the essence from each moment
of life and at the same moment to pay all the debts to the nature and
yourself; but only when you have "I", can you pay immediately.
Real life is not a change of activity, but a change of the quality of the
activity. Destiny - is destiny. Each one of us has to find himself in the
whole order of things. It is not too late yet to start doing it now,
although you have spent the greater part of your life in sleep. Starting
from today you can begin to prepare yourself for death and, at the same
time, to increase the quality of your living. But do not delay with the
start - maybe you really only have just one more hour of life.
Question: Can we share this with others? I think it is very important
what we have heard about this evening.
- You can retell it word by word, but until you will [can?] do this
[exercise] yourself, it would mean nothing for others. Existence is the
means, or the instrument, for action. Think about this and you will find
out why it is so.
Question: Therefore, we cannot pay the debts, if we do not exist, or if
our "I" is absent?
- Why do you have such a need to pay? Pay for what? If life is only a
coincidence, then there is no sense to go on. This does not mean that you
have to end your life with a suicide. Opposite, you have to put all your
effort into "to live". Ordinary man always lives, just going with the
flow. He is not just sleeping, he is absolutely dead. To really live, it
is necessary to support the efforts of nature, to take actively from
life, and not to act passively - wherever it flows.
Extracting from life the most precious, you have to be able to operate
your emotions. See how fairly you can estimate yourself. Look attentively
at yourself and you will see many remarkable ways to be fair. Each time
notice for yourself different moments when the desires appear. Act as
before, but always be aware of their presence. Transport to the world the
part of your blood, but one of the higher level.
At the end of each hour after you have estimated its usefulness, imagine
that you just woke up in the absolutely unknown in comparison to the
previous one gone by. It is important to note that the apparent
continuation of the last hour is in reality changing with every hour,
although things and people seem the same as before. With the time you
will learn to see yourself as a spirit of a special substance, who is
coming from one world to another, as an uninvited guest of nature.
Looking from this point of view evaluate everything you do in your life.
Looking at the results of all your efforts of the past and think what
sense they all have now, in the last hour of your life. Those who are
engaged in the Work, are dead to this world and at the same time they are
more alive in this world than anyone else. Work...something strange,
imperceptible, but for many it is impossible to live without it.
The ordinary way of understanding life is vanity of vanities. However big
the result is according to earthly measures, sooner or later it will
fail. Even the sand is being rubbed into dust by time. Even the most
significant people of history are being forgotten. To understand the real
possibilities of this world, it is necessary to find what we can reach in
this world that will be very useful in the Real World.
Attentively look at the lives of all the greatest people, those who were
commanding armies, who had power over others. What is the benefit for
them from all their great actions now, when they are dead? Even when they
were alive, all these great actions were no more than empty dreams. We
are not here to praise ourselves and to prove ourselves, the most
disgusting in the ordinary man is the ability to quickly satisfy his
flesh.
The majority of people find many excuses not to work on themselves. They
are in a complete prison of their weaknesses. But right now we do not
speak about them, but about you.
Understand me right, I do not need followers, I am rather interested in
finding the good organizers, the real warriors of the new world. I
understand the weakness of the organization, because right now we do not
speak about the usual organisation which would consist of initiates.
I remind you once again, learn to live each of your hours with a bigger
benefit. Create a detailed plan of the last hour of your life. To
understand how one should die, you should grow deep roots into life, only
then you will be able to die like a human being, not like a dog.
Although, it is not given to everyone - to die. You can become manure for
our planet, but it does not really mean do die. To die to this world
forever - is an honour. For this honour you have to pay with Conscious
Labour and Intentional Suffering. You have to earn this right.
Try to imagine yourself relatively clearly the last hour of your life on
earth. Write a kind of a script of this last hour, as if you were writing
the script for a film. Ask yourself: "Is this how Iwant to dispose my
life". If you are not satisfied with the answer, rewrite the script until
you likeit.
Look at life like as business. Time is your money for life. When you came
into this world, a definite amount of money was given to you and this you
cannot exceed. Time is the only currency with which you pay for your
life. Now you see, how you used the biggest part of it in a stupid way.
You have not even reached the main goal of life - to have rest. You
failed as a businessman, and as a user of life - you deceived yourself.
All your life you thought that everything is given to you for free, and
now suddenly you discovered that - it is not free. You pay for using the
time, that is why each moment of your stay here costs something.
So how would it be possible for you to reimburse [recover] at least
somehow these losses? Check, if the deficit on your bank account is only
temporary or is it perhaps constant? Did you loose the time or could you
invest it successfully? If you have spent all your money on vacations,
then there is nothing to do but to be sorry about the past.
For many years you have been spending you life as if your parents gave
you a bank account with unlimited credit. But now the amount is used and
you see that you are all alone and that there is none to rely on. There
is no more time on your bank account. Now you are forced to earn each
hour of your life. All your life you behaved like a child and spent time
just like a newly married couple on their honeymoon.
Our main enemy, which is hindering us from applying the necessary efforts
- is hopelessness. I know, you will have many excuses not to prepare
yourself for the last hour of your life. The habit is a big force, but
starting once, you can learn to do each time more and more.
Do not fiddle all day, force yourself at least one hour a day to make an
effort, otherwise you will loose everything. Think about the rehearsal of
your last hour as if it was ballet exercises - you have to do it all your
life.
I dedicate four hours a day for this exercise, but when I was young, I
spent on it two times longer.
Translation from Russian by Alexandra Kharitonova, with free English
rendering by Reijo Oksanen. unearthed by Ilya Kotz & Avi Solomon of the
Jerusalem Nyland Group.
Notable quotes:
"... Ryan Holiday is the author of ..."
"... (Profile Books, £9.99). To order a copy for £8.19, go to bookshop.theguardian.com ..."
Some of us are stressed. Others are overworked, struggling with the new responsibilities of parenthood,
or moving from one flawed relationship to another. Whatever it is, whatever you are going through,
there is wisdom from the Stoics that can help.
Followers of this ancient and inscrutable philosophy have found themselves at the centre of some
of history's most trying ordeals, from the French Revolution to the American Civil War to the prison
camps of Vietnam. Bill Clinton reportedly reads Roman Emperor and stoic Marcus Aurelius's Meditations
once a year, and one can imagine him handing a copy to Hillary after her heart-wrenching loss
in the US presidential election.
Stoicism is a school of philosophy which was founded in Athens in the early 3rd century and then
progressed to Rome, where it became a pragmatic way of addressing life's problems. The central message
is, we don't control what happens to us; we control how we respond .
The Stoics were really writing and thinking about one thing: how to live. The questions they asked
were not arcane or academic but practical and real. "What do I do about my anger?" "What do I do
if someone insults me?" "I'm afraid to die; why is that?" "How can I deal with the difficult situations
I face?" "How can I deal with the success or power I hold?"
There also happens to be a decent amount of advice on how to live under the looming threat of
a tyrant ("I may wish to be free from torture, but if the time comes for me to endure it, I'll wish
to bear it courageously with bravery and honor," wrote the Roman philosopher Seneca). All of which
makes Stoic philosophy particularly well-suited to the world we live in.
While it would be hard to find a word dealt a greater injustice at the hands of the English language
than "stoicism"- with its mistaken connotations of austerity and lack of emotion - in fact, nothing
could be more necessary for our times than a good dose of Stoic philosophy.
When the news media provokes us with overwhelming amounts of information, Epictetus, another Roman
philosopher, cuts through the noise: "If you wish to improve, be content to appear clueless or stupid
in extraneous matters." When it feels like people are ruder and more selfish than ever, Marcus Aurelius
urges us to ask when we ourselves have behaved the same way - and says that the best revenge is simply
"to not be like that".
When the natural inclination is to focus on achievement and money, Seneca's reminder to his father-in-law,
who had just been removed from a prominent position, rings true: "Believe me, it's better to produce
the balance sheet of your own life than that of the grain market."
In their writings - often private letters or diaries - and in their lectures, the Stoics struggled
to come up with real, actionable answers. They held duty and honor as sacred obligations and they
believed that every obstacle they faced was simply an opportunity - to test themselves and be better.
Now Stoicism is finding resonance with new followers. Just last month in New York, a conference
called Stoicon was declared to be the largest gathering of Stoics in history.
This kind of philosophy is not an idle pursuit but a crucial tool. As Seneca said, "Where then
do I look for good and evil? Not to uncontrollable externals, but within myself to the choices that
are my own."
About the author
Ryan Holiday is the author of The Daily Stoic: 366 Meditations on Wisdom, Perseverance,
and the Art of Living (Profile Books, £9.99). To order a copy for £8.19, go to bookshop.theguardian.com
Notable quotes:
"... is a board certified hospice and palliative care physician. In her work she helps people make decisions about their medical treatment, helping them elucidate their values, preferences, and goals given the constraints of their medical situation and their limited time to live. Mary began practicing an intuitive form of Stoicism as a child. She discovered Stoic philosophy in middle age. She finds Stoicism essential, not only for her personal life, but also to avoid having patients, their loved ones, and herself becoming overwhelmed by the difficulties of taking care of the sickest and most fragile patients in the medical system ..."
As happens with many Stoics, my Stoic practice developed spontaneously as a response
to difficulties in my life. I was orphaned when I was seven, causing the life I had
known to evaporate. In order to survive this loss, using my own intuition I developed
some potent Stoic techniques for tolerating difficult situations. Unfortunately, I
did not develop any techniques for avoiding difficult situations. Thus my personal
brand of Stoicism carried me straight from suboptimal foster care right into a bad
marriage.
A couple of decades and several life changes later, my boyfriend
introduced me to Stoic philosophy. I was shocked to discover how much of my
self-developed philosophy of living and coping techniques those ancient Greeks had
known about all along. Thus, well into middle age, I started the formal practice of
Stoic philosophy. Those ancient Greeks had a trick or two to teach me. My life got
even better with their help.
At this point, I rely on my Stoic techniques when things start to go wrong inside
my head. Earlier this week, a dying patient was reviewing his life with me. He told
me about how much he valued the teamwork he and his wife shared to raise their
children. It is a beautiful story and my eyes start to fill with tears. No problem so
far. I am not expected to be without feelings, but if my feelings take control of my
thinking, I cannot focus enough to be a good doctor.
As I listen to my patient talk about how raising their children deepened his
relationship with his wife, I realize the one thing I wanted most out of life was to
raise my kids well. I married and had children with a man who always had his way and
whose method of childrearing I disagreed with. I could not figure out how to
challenge his child rearing ideas or how to divorce him for twenty five years. Now I
am too old to have more children, and will never get to have the experience of
raising a child with a partner. I didn't get a father; I only got a mother for seven
years. Life couldn't even deliver me a decent husband. I don't ask for much. My eyes
are dripping tears now and I realize that I am not paying any attention to my
patient.
I need to pull myself away from the attraction of self-pity and into the present.
Even if I had the skills to turn my feelings off, that would not be helpful; I need
them in order to take care of my patient. I remind myself of the Stoic maxim: "It
seemed so to you at the time."
I have a sense that I am shoving my foot in a slamming door. If I can keep the
door from closing, I can maintain control of myself, and my equanimity will be only
briefly disturbed. It feels as though the force of emotion that wells up must be
countered with something forceful. If what I bring to bear on it is not forceful, it
will fail. Once the tears start forming, my Buddhist practice has nothing to offer
me. Once I have started to lose my equanimity, my emotions flood me if I attempt to
use Buddhist techniques. I have found that only Stoic techniques overcome the waves
of emotion. Buddhist techniques feel more general and unfocussed.
What my Buddhist meditation practice does offer me is a decrease in my overall
reactivity. When I am meditating regularly, I am less apt to be bothered by the
unavoidable emotional events of life. This pattern has repeated itself a dozen or
more times. I fall away from my meditation practice. I become more easily riled. I
recognize this and resume meditating. Things improve until I fall away from my
meditation practice again.
I asked people on the Facebook Stoicism Group about their experiences, and learned
this is typical. The only consensus was that Stoic mindfulness practices are useful
for the immediately present threat to equanimity, and Buddhist mindfulness practices
help strengthen equanimity overall.
It is not surprising to me that Buddhist meditation works well for us on a daily
basis because it has been honed over thousands of years by hundreds of thousands of
people. What is surprising to me is that it does not always work well for me and my
Facebook friends. It surprises me that our Buddhist practice fails us in the pinch.
Why does Buddhism not include techniques like "Amor Fati" or negative
visualization? Are these incompatible with the Buddhist philosophy? I do not know
enough about Buddhism to answer that.
It seems to me that if there were a significant fraction of people whose needs
were not being met by Buddhism, and that there were non-Buddhist techniques that met
their needs, then Buddhism would have figured out how to respond to them. Either
these techniques would have been incorporated into Buddhism or variant forms of
Buddhism would have developed that were compatible with these techniques. I think it
is more likely that the Buddhist techniques worked well enough for most people in the
society in which Buddhism developed.
When I receive a disturbing impression and begin to formulate my response to it,
Buddhism would say that I need to distance myself from that nascent thought and to
examine it scientifically as I would someone else's emotion. So far, this is very
similar to the Stoic teachings on disturbing impressions as I understand them.
Buddhism recommends that I next lean into the unpleasant emotion, to really examine
it, get to know it and to realize that it will pass soon. This technique results in
me wallowing in my emotion as I wait for it to pass. I become so attracted to it that
I will grasp it firmly and become unable to function. Perhaps if I practiced this
technique for decades, it would work, but the dying patient in front of me does not
have decades while I grapple with my inner demons.
Stoicism offers me techniques that I can use right in the moment. Instead of
leaning in, I counter the emotion with a maxim that I have prepared and have at the
ready for whenever disturbing emotions arise. The part of my mind that is not wrapped
up in my personal tragedy can recite Stoic maxims forcefully to counter the
attraction of "I didn't get and I want." Stoicism gets between my mind and the idea
it is about to grip onto and stays my grasp before it happens. For me, for the most
disturbing impressions, this is what works.
There is an idea in neurology of over-learning. Things which one repeats thousands
of times during one's lifetime such as the ABC's or the response to "how are you
today?" are over-learned. When a person is demented and has lost the ability to think
in any meaningful fashion, they can often still recite the ABC's or other
over-learned phrases. It seems to me that when I am caught by my deep feelings of
deprivation and grief that I am like a demented person and can only say over-learned
things. The little bit of my brain that is not sucked into the black hole of "I lack"
can barely squeak out "It seemed so to you at the time." If it can however, it breaks
the spell and the attractiveness of the disturbing impression is diminished.
Another common observation is that Western culture has more emphasis on
independence and individuality. It seems likely that this emphasis develops minds
that are more likely to work with individually oriented techniques. Stoicism
emphasizing my personal inner citadel rather than Buddhism emphasizing dissolution of
myself feels more comfortable to me. When I am most in pain, standing steadfast
against an ocean crashing against the seawall of my personal virtue makes me feel
less pain whereas the paradoxical teachings of Buddhism simply frustrate me.
I find that Buddhist techniques on an ongoing basis combined with Stoic ones on an
as needed basis work best for me to maximize my equanimity. I do not have a good
explanation for why. I am more at peace, at rest and am flourishing more than ever
before in my life.
This reminds me of another Stoic technique that I practice. It has a Buddhist
analog: I am grateful.
Mary Braun, MD
is a board certified hospice and palliative
care physician. In her work she helps people make decisions about their medical
treatment, helping them elucidate their values, preferences, and goals given the
constraints of their medical situation and their limited time to live. Mary began
practicing an intuitive form of Stoicism as a child. She discovered Stoic philosophy
in middle age. She finds Stoicism essential, not only for her personal life, but also
to avoid having patients, their loved ones, and herself becoming overwhelmed by the
difficulties of taking care of the sickest and most fragile patients in the medical
system
.
Notable quotes:
"... And even in Buddhism it is hard to find much in the way of political or social engagement, outside of a general attitude of compassion (and, again, acceptance) for the suffering of creatures. I won't go as far as agreeing with Marx that the point is not to understand the world, but to change it, but surely a positive philosophy has to explicitly engage with how to improve the human condition, not just at the individual level, but socially. ..."
"... Epicureans insisted on the value of friendship, for instance, which I do believe is a fundamental component of a flourishing existence. Their assault on fear-engendering superstition can also be counted as one of their most enduring legacies. ..."
"... And all three philosophies have in common the idea that it is wise to attempt to understand the world as it actually is, as opposed to the way it superficially appears to be ..."
by Massimo Pigliucci
However many holy words
you read, however many you speak, what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?
(Buddha)
It is folly for a man to pray to the gods
for that which he has the power to obtain by himself.
(Epicurus)
Adapt yourself to the things among which
your lot has been cast and love sincerely the fellow creatures with whom destiny has ordained that
you shall live.
(Marcus Aurelius)
I have been pondering for a while that there
are some striking similarities among the three ancient philosophies of
Buddhism
,
Epicureanism
and
Stoicism
. Let me premise that
I don't know as much about the first as about the latter two, and even there I'm certainly no expert,
so take what follows with a commensurately sized grain of salt.
Buddhism is the more complicated of the three,
largely - I think - because it has a much longer history as a live philosophy. It has therefore had
significantly more time to develop diverging schools of thoughts and interpretations. It is also
different from Epicureanism and Stoicism in belonging to the Eastern rather than the Western philosophical
tradition, which means that it is more imbued with mysticism and much less grounded in the Greek
style of logical argument (it is not by chance that Buddhism, but not the other two, is often referred
to as a "religion," though even there the term only applies partially and only to some Buddhist traditions).
Interestingly, all three philosophies arose
in similar times, both chronologically and in terms of social setting. The founder of Epicureanism
was, of course, Epicurus, a historical figure about whom we know a good deal. He lived between 341
and 269 BCE in Greece. Stoicism was established, also in ancient Greece, by Zeno of Citium (334-262
BCE), who was therefore a contemporary of Epicurus (indeed, the two schools were rivals throughout
the Hellenistic and Roman periods). The birth of Buddhism is much less clear, but it originated in
the northeastern Indian subcontinent in the 5th century BCE (so about one and a half centuries before
Epicureanism and Stoicism). Not as much is known about the actual life of its founder, Siddhārtha
Gautama, but there is no reason to believe that he was not an actual historical figure and that the
general course of his life took place along the lines accepted by tradition.
Perhaps more interestingly, though, all three
philosophies arose and thrived in times of social and political turmoil, within their respective
geographical areas. This is relevant because I think it may go some way toward explaining some of
the similarities I am interested in. Of course, Buddhism still thrives today, with hundreds of millions
of followers. Epicureanism and Stoicism, on the contrary, largely exist in textbooks, the main reason
being Christianity: as soon as the Christians took over the Roman empire they put their newly found
political and military might in the service of the one true god and persecuted both Epicureans and
Stoics. Both schools were officially abolished in 529 CE by the emperor Justinian I, that prick.
There are several interesting aspects of
all three philosophies that I will simply ignore here, particularly their more scientific ones (such
as, most prominently, Epicurean atomism, which was inherited from pre-Socratic thinkers like Leucippus,
Democritus, Heraclitus and Parmenides). I will concentrate instead on the metaphysics and ethics
of the three schools. I also need to add that I am quite skeptical of the attempts that various people
make of attributing almost miraculous "scientific" insights to ancient philosophies. Yes, the Epicureans
were talking about atoms, but that concept had very little to do with modern physics. The same goes
for the Buddhist idea that the self is an illusion, allegedly anticipating modern neuroscience. Indeed,
in the latter case, I think that treating the self as an illusion is a profound mistake, based on
a misunderstanding of neurobiology (but not of Buddhism, which really does claim something along
those lines!). But that's another story for another post.
Let's begin, then, with the basics of Epicureanism.
Of the three, it was by far the least mystical set of doctrines. Epicurus was a pretty strict materialist,
and even though he believed in the existence of a god, said god had nothing whatsoever to do with
the origin of the universe or human affairs, and indeed he was made of atoms just like everything
else.
Thanks to sustained Christian slurring, we
moderns associate Epicureanism with hedonism, but Epicurus' principle of pleasure had very little
to do with sex, drugs and rock 'n roll. His basic idea was that human suffering is caused by our
misunderstanding of the true nature of the world (a thought common also to Stoicism and Buddhism),
and to our preoccupation with human matters such as - ironically - sensual pleasures and political
power. All of this, according to Epicurus, interfered with the real goal of human existence, reaching
a state that he called
ataraxia
(which usually translates as tranquillity). To achieve
ataraxia
one has to eliminate both bodily and mental pains, and particularly one has to conquer
the fundamental fears of death and punishment in the afterlife. Hence, Epicureanism's profoundly
anti-religious, and eventually anti-Christian, character. Indeed, Epicureans' only social involvement
was in the fight against religion and superstition, which they regarded as a principal cause of human
unhappiness.
It seems to me that the Epicurean concept
of
ataraxia
, as well as their teachings on how to achieve it, are not that different in spirit
(though they certainly are in detail) from the Buddhist idea of
nirvana
, the highest
happiness possible for a sentient being. Indeed,
nirvana
derives from a Sanskrit word that
means something along the lines of "cessation of craving and ignorance," an idea that both Stoics
and Epicureans would have been very comfortable with (though
nirvana
has a decidedly more
mystical meaning than either the Stoics or especially the Epicureans would have been comfortable
with).
Basic
Buddhist teachings
begin with the
Four Noble Truths
. (I noticed that Buddhists have a penchant for numbering
things: there are four noble truths, the noble path is eightfold, there are four "immeasurables,"
three "marks of existence," "three jewels" to seek refuge in, five precepts for basic Buddhism, and
so on. You get the idea.) The four noble truths are: i) that
dukkha
(suffering) originates
from physical and mental illness, the anxiety engendered by constant change, and a general dissatisfaction
pervading all life forms; ii) that the origin of
dukkha
can be known by human beings, and
that its roots are craving and ignorance (see Epicureanism above!); iii) that the cessation of
dukkha
is indeed possible; and iv) that such cessation is achieved through the noble eightfold
path.
Said
noble eightfold path
, in turn,
is essentially a recipe to achieve the cessation of
dukkha
and eventually
nirvana
,
the eight components being meant to be pursued in parallel, not sequentially: 1) Right View, viewing
the world for what it is, not as it appears to be (easier said than done, but still); 2) Right Intention,
the pursuit of renunciation, freedom and harmlessness; 3) Right Speech, speaking truthfully and without
harming others; 4) Right Action, acting without harming others; 5) Right Livelihood, living without
causing harm; 6) Right Effort, that is making an effort to improve oneself (yes, you will notice
the recurring deployment of the notion of self in Buddhism, despite the fact that it allegedly doesn't
exist); 7) Right Mindfulness, which means awareness of both how things are and of the reality within
one
self
(!); and 8) Right Concentration, engaging in meditation or concentration of the right
kind.
One of the most problematic Buddhist concepts,
I think, is that of
karma
, which refers to a cosmic force driving the cycle of suffering
and rebirth of every being. The idea is that one's actions during a lifetime determine one's rebirth
at the next cycle. (I think that there is a fundamental contradiction between the Buddhist rejection
of the idea of an enduring self and the very concept of beings that go through different lifetimes.
Buddhists do have answers to this objection, of course, but I find them extremely unconvincing.)
The goal, so to speak, is to be reborn on higher "planes of existence" (there are 31 of them, grouped
in 6 "realms"), until eventually one achieves enlightenment and escapes the cycle of rebirth altogether.
I say that
karma
is problematic for
a variety of reasons. To begin with, it seems to be plucked out of nowhere, with neither empirical
or even logical support. It amounts to an automatic cosmic scoring chart which will affect a new
being who has, in fact, no memory of what his "predecessor" actually did to gain positive or negative
karma
points. Ethically, it is hard to imagine why one should be responsible for (or should
gain from) the previous round in her or his "dependent arising."
Be that as it may, the idea that there is
a cosmic framework within which we act is reminiscent of (though it is quite distinct from)
the Stoic idea of
logos
, which is a sort of universal reason that determines the unfolding
of events. For the Stoics too, the goal is to become clear about reality, and a major objective is
to develop a degree of self-control that allows one to overcome destructive emotions (which arise
precisely from errors of judgment about how the world works). Again, the parallels with both Epicureanism
and Buddhism seem obvious.
Stoics aimed not at getting rid of emotions
(despite the popular caricature of Stoics as Spock-like figures), but rather to channel them in a
more productive direction. This was achieved through a combination of logic, concentration and reflection,
and eventually evolved into various contemporary forms of cognitive behavioral therapy. (In this
sense, both Buddhism - with its various meditative techniques - and Stoicism have entered the realm
of modern practices, which can be pursued essentially independently of the philosophies that gave
origin to them.) The ultimate goal of the Stoic was
apatheia
, or peace of mind, which I think
is akin to both the Epicurean ideal of
ataraxia
and the Buddhist goal of
nirvana
(again,
with due consideration given to the significant differences in the background conditions and specific
articulation of the three philosophies). And of course Stoics too had a ready-made recipe for their
philosophy, in the form of a short list of virtues to practice (nothing compared to the above mentioned
panoply of Buddhist lists though!). These were: courage, justice, temperance and wisdom.
I am sure one could continue with this conceptual
cross-mapping for a while, and of course scholars within each of the three traditions would object
to or modify my suggestions. What I am interested in here, however, is pursuing the further questions
of what the common limitations of the philosophies of Buddhism, Epicureanism and Stoicism are, as
well as what positive contributions they have made to humanity's thinking about (and dealing with!)
the universe.
I am inclined to reject both Buddhism's and
Stoicism's metaphysics, being significantly more happy with the Epicurean view of the world. I don't
think there is any reason to think that concepts like
logos
or
karma
have any philosophical
substance, nor do they do any work in actually explaining why things are the way they are. The Epicurean
embracing of a materialist metaphysics, instead, is in synch with the development of natural philosophy
and eventually of modern science. True, there are no "atoms" in the sense in which Epicurus and his
predecessors where thinking of them, and the free will-enabling "swerve" seems a rather arbitrary
conceit that has been superseded by better philosophical treatment of the problem it was supposed
to address. But all in all I think Epicurean metaphysics handily beats the other two.
However, of
concern is the limited social engagement
of all three philosophies. While they do differ in degree on this count too, Buddhism, Epicureanism
and Stoicism all preach a level of detachment that seems alien to being human and that may easily
lead to social disengagement. On this issue, I'm with David Hume (and with much modern neuroscience)
when he argued that emotions aren't something to get rid of or overcome (or drastically alter), but
instead they are the very reason we give a crap about anything to begin with.
All three philosophies certainly imply a
good measure of compassion for our fellow creatures, but the Epicureans in particular expressly rejected
involvement in politics, and their only social engagement was manifested in their relentless attack
on religion and superstition as the primary causes of fear. The Stoics were opposed to slavery and
preached brotherly love, but their insistence on understanding and accepting whatever the
logos
set out easily slides into a somewhat passive stance devoid of social action.
And even in Buddhism
it is hard to find much in the way of political or social engagement, outside of a general attitude
of compassion (and, again, acceptance) for the suffering of creatures. I won't go as far as agreeing
with Marx that the point is not to understand the world, but to change it, but surely a positive
philosophy has to explicitly engage with how to improve the human condition, not just at the individual
level, but socially.
As I mentioned earlier, though, perhaps this
common degree of passivity toward the social and emphasis on the individual's understanding and acceptance
of the world resulted from the fact that all three philosophies were born at a time of social turmoil
and uncertainty, when surely an attitude of recoiling into one's internal world must have seemed
like the only available option in the face of events that were hard to control and that often resulted
in painful consequences for large swaths of society.
On the positive side, I am a firm believer
that philosophy is a continuous source of valuable insight into the human condition, so I think most
philosophies offer something that is worth plucking and adding to the store of our collective wisdom.
In the cases of these three, and despite my reservations about their dearth of social engagement,
there is quite a bit to be recommended.
Epicureans insisted on the value of friendship,
for instance, which I do believe is a fundamental component of a flourishing existence. Their assault
on fear-engendering superstition can also be counted as one of their most enduring legacies.
Both
Buddhists and Stoics, for their part, developed techniques to improve people's mental well being,
and there is good empirical evidence that those techniques do work (though my personal preference
is for the more reflective Stoic approach rather than the overly meditative Buddhist one).
And all
three philosophies have in common the idea that it is wise to attempt to understand the world as
it actually is, as opposed to the way it superficially appears to be
(though, again, I think the
Buddhists were more off the mark than the other two, particularly the Epicureans).
In the end, I don't consider myself an Epicurean
or a Stoic, and I am certainly no Buddhist. But this does not preclude me from appreciating what
some of the greatest minds of human antiquity had to say to their fellow travelers. Their thoughts
still resonate vibrantly more than two millennia after they were first conceived, and that is no
small accomplishment by any human standard.
Notable quotes:
"... My idea of the modern stoic sage is someone who transforms fear into prudence, pain into information, mistakes into initiation, and desire into undertaking. ..."
"... What is wrong is not following the heroic or, at least, the dignified path. That is what stoicism truly means. ..."
"... The stoic is a person who combines the qualities of wisdom, upright dealing, and courage. The stoic will thus be immune from life's gyrations as he will be superior to the wounds from some of life's dirty tricks. ..."
"... In some ways stoicism resembles a Western form of Buddhism. ..."
"... The world has learned to thrive on positive illusion to drive reality; the world of the Ideal controls the Material more and more through illusory concepts, half-baked in our Romantic minds. Because the Stoic ideal depends on self-mastery and reason rather than emotion, it certainly is more difficult than ever before to be a Stoic. ..."
Sourav Roy,
Mar
27, 2014
I was introduced to stoicism by Nassim Taleb in his book Antifragile.
The stoic learns from mistakes and practices tranquility of mind in the
face of chaos, and hence is very much applicable in today's time. Taleb
says,
My idea of the modern stoic sage is someone who transforms fear
into prudence, pain into information, mistakes into initiation, and
desire into undertaking.
Stoicism is often misunderstood as being a cold or glum. This is far from
the case. Taleb says
Recall that epic heroes were judged by their actions, not by the results.
No matter how sophisticated our choices, how good we are at dominating
the odds, randomness will have the last word…..There is nothing wrong
and undignified with emotions-we are cut to have them. What is wrong
is not following the heroic or, at least, the dignified path. That is
what stoicism truly means. It is the attempt by man to get even
with probability…..stoicism has rather little to do with the stiff-upper-lip
notion that we believe it means…..The stoic is a person who combines
the qualities of wisdom, upright dealing, and courage. The stoic will
thus be immune from life's gyrations as he will be superior to the wounds
from some of life's dirty tricks.
Stoicism is a philosophy not a religion and is therefore applicable in all
periods of time and compatible with all faiths including atheism and agnosticism.
In some ways stoicism resembles a Western form of Buddhism.
Assaph Mehr, Failed Stoic. Miserable Existentialist. Atheist.
Sep
4, 2013
I think so, or at least I'd like to think so :)Before anything else,
I would highly recommend you read The Antidote (Amazon.com:
The Antidote: Happiness for people who can't stand positive thinking eBook:
Oliver Burkeman: Kindle Store). There is a lot in it about modern Stoicism.
Now as for the point of view of someone who tries to live life Stoically
(on the emotional detachment level): It's bloody hard, that's what it is!
Besides providing pithy quotes and inspirational sayings, I think you
have to accept the following existential views as the road:
- You have one life, and this is it
- The is no "end goal" in life, it is all about how you live each
moment. Put another way, the meaning of life is how you chose to
live life itself
- Perfection is not something you achieve, it is something you
strive towards
- Stoicism is an ideal. Keep striving while accepting occasional
failures. Some tools that might help you on your way:
- The above book. Probably an easier read than Marcus Aurelius
and Epictetus (at least for me)
- Mindful meditation. This will help you recognise your
own thoughts, so that you can catch yourself in the act and re-route
thoughts and neural pathways.
- Start with Existentialism (e.g. Viktor Frankl's Man's
Search for Meaning), in the sense that you accept that the only
thing you can control are your words, your actions, your thoughts
and your emotions. When faced with a situation brought on by external
circumstances and people and that affects you, analyze yourself
as to why it does and how can you use it (this is where meditation
helps).
- I have heard good things about NLP, but there are a lot of mixed
and bad reviews as well.
In essence, accept that it will not be easy. As things affect you, catch
yourself in the act and ask why? And then re-route your thinking on the
subject, for next time.
Anything that helps you do this - meditation, NLP, philosophy books -
is good, but it's a very personal journey.
Anonymous,
Updated Sep 3, 2014
I think it is impossible to be a true and honest Stoic in any single era,
because of the logical inconsistencies in the entire ethical philosophy.
By Stoicism, I am assuming you are talking about the ethical aspect rather
than the other advancements they made such as logic and natural theory.
To first answer this question directly, I think that it is certainly
more difficult nowadays to achieve the Stoic dream than ever because of
the rampant Romanticism that envelops us all in the modern age. I think
the ethical discourse in the modern age encourages a neo-Romanticism aspect
on almost everything, from relationships, to consumerism, dreams (American
Dream especially), propaganda (e.g. KONY 2012), and advertisement.
The world has learned to thrive on positive illusion to drive reality;
the world of the Ideal controls the Material more and more through illusory
concepts, half-baked in our Romantic minds. Because the Stoic ideal depends
on self-mastery and reason rather than emotion, it certainly is more difficult
than ever before to be a Stoic.
Now onto the problems of Stoic ethics and the impossibility of
Stoicism:By ethical aspect, I mean their philosophy of happiness derived
mainly from the texts of Aurelius and Epictetus, in which it is generally
accepted:
"The Stoics did, in fact, hold that emotions like fear or envy (or impassioned
sexual attachments, or passionate love of anything whatsoever) either
were, or arose from, false judgements and that the sage-a person who
had attained moral and intellectual perfection-would not undergo them."
Stoicism mirrors Buddhism in the renunciation of desire, and that I believe
is the fatal logical flaw. It is impossible to rid yourself of all desires.
The life well lived to the Stoics depends upon the extinction of
all desire, whereas a more common-sensical approach would be the moderation
of desires, the philosophy that the opposing school of philosophy (Epicureanism)
proposed.
Human beings are emotional first, and reason is nothing but a string
of empathy that extends throughout our shared experiences. The goal of Stoicism
is impossible in nature, and to fully shut out emotions is a terrifying
way to live. At best, we can trick ourselves into thinking that we have
no desire, and in that case our "Stoic" lives become lies.
To become a Stoic is a desire in-itself. Thus the entire prospect
is doomed from the start.
The Stoic dream is a desire to have no desires -- and that is a
nightmare of a life.
Another issue I have with Stoicism is in the ability to ignore all circumstances
in order to find happiness. Find exactly what you are responsible for, and
if the negative event is not of your own bringing, then you have no reason
to be unhappy. Incapability is not a valid reason to feel no unhappiness.
Because you could not have done otherwise, even in a deterministic system
fails to validate the disappearance of emotion.
Epictetus also proposed that self-mastery and knowing oneself would lead
to this keen ability to distinguish between self and circumstance. He makes
it out to seem as if a conclusion can really be reached. For example, if
I am trying to intervene in a friend's suicide, what can I do? Should I:
- A) Come to understand that it is out of my control, and state that
my free will only goes so far as to not interfere with another's free
will? (Rousseau).
- B) Should I try anyways in conclusion that any attempt may help
this friend of mine from committing suicide?
- C) Should I believe that it is fully my responsibility being in
my friend's presence to prevent suicide?
There is little we can do in tough decisions and states of being to
draw a line between self and circumstance. We ourselves are not aware of
the limits of our influence, and thus this self mastery is a joke. Our influence
does not always depend on us. It is a matter of circumstance, itself. We
are circumstance.
Stoicism depends upon self-mastery and heavy introspection which is of
course valued across the board -- it is the dream of the Enlightenment and
can be found in Kant's What is Enlightenment? Therefore, it is not
an accomplishment specific to Stoicism. After all, that dream of the Enlightenment
is also disputed, especially since it often depends upon the notion of free
will.
Other than a collection of "inspirational quotes" by Aurelius and Epictetus
for the layman, there is little else that makes sense in Stoic ethics.
•
View Upvotes
Stephen Matthew, Student •
View Upvotes
No, Stoicism's ethical philosophy is flawed right from the beginning. Can
you ever imagine emotionally satisfying each human being on Earth? Ethics
have always been dictated by people with power and capacity and the world
is organised by power hierarchy rather than ethics.Ethics is important
in many day to day human interactions but loses its hold after a point.Eastern
philosophy on the other hand propose ethically wholesome lifestyle while
giving primary importance to transformation of human energy or expanding
one's consciousness.Once there is a conscious absorption in higher forms
of energy/intensity it will make him powerful enough to dictate ethics.Increasing
and bringing clarity of perception in life is much more important than being
ethical.
Following is the criticism of any ethical philosophy(including stoicism)
as proposed by Eastern Philosopher -Sri Aurobindo:
"
The Limitations of Morality
There is an area of our being which is a source of both great difficulty
and great power. A source of difficulty, because it blurs all the communications
from outside or above by frantically opposing our efforts to silence the
mind and bogging down the consciousness at its own level of petty occupations
and interests, thus hindering its free movement toward other regions.
A source of power, because it is the outcropping of the great force of life
in us. This is the region located between the heart and the sex center,
which Sri Aurobindo calls the vital.
It is a place full of every possible mixture: pleasure is inextricably
mixed with suffering, pain with joy, evil with good, and make-believe with
truth. The world's various spiritual traditions have found it so troublesome
that they have preferred to reject this dangerous zone altogether, allowing
only the expression of so-called religious emotions and strongly advising
the neophyte to reject everything else. Everyone seems to agree: human nature
is unchangeable. But this kind of moral
surgery,57 as Sri Aurobindo calls it, has two drawbacks: first,
it does not bring about any real purification, because the higher emotions,
however refined they may appear to be, are as mixed as the lower ones, since
they are sentimental in essence and hence partial; secondly, it does not
really prevent anything – it merely represses. The vital is a force of its
own, entirely independent of our rational or moral arguments. If we try
to overpower it or ill-treat it by radical asceticism or discipline, the
slightest letup can bring on an open rebellion – and it knows how to take
revenge with interest. Or, if we have enough willpower to impose our
mental or moral rules upon it, we may prevail, but at the cost of drying
up the life-force in ourselves, because the frustrated vital will go on
strike and we will find ourselves purified not only of the evil but also
of the good in life: we will have become colorless and odorless. What
is more, morality works only within the bounds of the mental process; it
does not have access to the subconscious or superconscious regions, or to
death, or to sleep (which happens to take up one day out of every three
in our existence, so that a sixty-year life span would entitle us to forty
years of waking moral life and twenty years of immortality – a strange arithmetic).
In other words, morality does not go beyond the limits of our small frontal
personality. "
Sri Aurobindo: So long as you need to be virtuous you have not
attained the pure spiritual height where you have not to think whether the
action is moral or not. These people hastily conclude that when you ask
them to rise above morality, you are asking them to sink down below good
and evil. That is not at all the case.
- They believe that a man can advance only by morality, i.e. by remaining
moral.
Sri Aurobindo: Nobody denies that. By morality you become more
human, but you do not go beyond humanity. Morality has done much good to
man, maybe; it has also done much harm. The question is whether you can
rise to something above man by morality. That sort of mental limitation
is not conductive to the growth into the Spirit.
- But they always confuse morality with spirituality.
The Upanishads and the Gita are loud with and full of the idea of going
beyond morality. For instance, when the Upanishad says: "he does not need
to think whether he is doing is good or bad" (sadhu, asadhu). Such
a man attains a consciousness in which there is no need to think about morality
because the action proceeds from the Truth.
"The attempt of human thought to force an ethical meaning into the whole
of Nature is one of those acts of wilful and obstinate self-confusion, one
of those pathetic attempts of the human being to read himself, his limited
habitual human self into all things and judge them from the stand-point
he has personally evolved, which most effectively prevent him from arriving
at real knowledge and complete sight."
So,Stoicism's ethical theory makes one incapable of self defense in a
sense lifeless.But I agree with with other aspects of natural theory like
the concepts of Logos and Eros.
The opposition of good and evil is not finally resolved in ethical plane
but can achieved through spiritual/human energy focus & transcendence
Abi Saafir,
Written Aug 28, 2013
Had a thought, then thought more thoughts
Not in a historical sense. The Stoics were an ancient Greek school of philosophy
founded in Athens during the Hellenistic period.In a philosophical sense,
you can absolutely become a Stoic. I recommend starting with the Roman Imperial
stoics, Epictitus and Seneca.
Stoicism
http://plato.stanford.edu/entrie...
Seneca
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Related Questions
Related Questions
Notable quotes:
"... Massimo Pigliucci is a professor of philosophy at the City College of New York. He edits the Scientia Salon webzine and produces the Rationally Speaking podcast. His latest book, co-edited with Maarten Boudry, is "Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem." ..."
Throughout the rest of the day, my Stoic practice is mostly about mindfulness,
which means to remind myself that I not only I live "hic et nunc," in the here
and now, where I must pay attention to whatever it is I am doing, but, more
importantly, that pretty much every decision I make has a moral dimension, and
needs to be approached with proper care and thoughtfulness. For me this often
includes how to properly and respectfully treat students and colleagues, or
how to shop for food and other items in the most ethically minded way possible
(there are apps for that, naturally).Finally, my daily practice
ends with an evening meditation, which consists in writing in a diary (definitely
not meant for publication!) my thoughts about the day, the challenges I faced,
and how I handled them. I ask myself, as Seneca put it in "On Anger": "What
bad habit have you put right today? Which fault did you take a stand against?
In what respect are you better?"
Stoicism, of course, may not
appeal to or work for everyone. It is a rather demanding philosophy of life,
where your moral character is pretty much stipulated to be the only truly worthy
thing to cultivate in life (though health, education, and even wealth are considered
to be "preferred indifferents"). Then again, it does have a lot of points of
contact with other philosophies, as well as religions: Buddhism, Christianity,
and - I think - even modern secular movements such as
secular humanism or
ethical culture. There is something very appealing
for me as a non religious person in the idea of an ecumenical philosophy, one
that can share goals and at the least some general attitudes with other major
ethical traditions across the world.
There are also challenges
that remain unresolved. The original Stoicism was a comprehensive philosophy
that included not just a particular view of ethics, but also a metaphysics,
a take on natural science, and specific approaches to logic and epistemology
(i.e., a theory of knowledge). Many of the particular notions of the ancient
Stoics have ceded place to modern science and philosophy, and need to be updated.
Take, for instance, the Stoic
concept of Logos, the rational principle that governs the universe. For the
Stoics, this was the manifestation of a divine creative mind, a notion I certainly
cannot subscribe to as a modern secular philosopher and scientist. But I am
on board with the idea that the universe is organized according to rational-mathematical
principles (otherwise we could not understand it scientifically), and I share
the Stoic belief in universal cause and effect, which in turn has profound implications
for the way Stoics look at both our place in the cosmos and our conduct of everyday
life.
Given all this, I am willing
to invest some time into exploring just how much one can recover of the original
Stoic spirit, update it with modern knowledge, and still reasonably call it
"Stoicism" (or, more properly, neo-Stoicism). If it turns out that it can't
be done, I will at least have learned much from the search.
In the end, of course, Stoicism
is simply another path some people can try out in order to develop a more or
less coherent view of the world, of who they are, and of how they fit in the
broader scheme of things.
The need for this sort of
insight seems to be universal.
Massimo Pigliucci is a
professor of philosophy at the City College of New York. He edits the
Scientia Salon webzine and
produces the Rationally Speaking
podcast. His latest book, co-edited with Maarten Boudry, is "Philosophy of Pseudoscience:
Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem."
Notable quotes:
"... This isn't as cold as it might at first sound: we ought to overcome harmful, negative emotions that are based on mistaken judgments while embracing correct positive emotions, replacing anger with joy. ..."
"... There is nothing to be gained from trying to resist these larger processes except anger, frustration, and disappointment. While there are many things in the world that we can change, there are many others we cannot and we need to understand this and accept it. ..."
Stoicism was one of the four principal schools of philosophy in
ancient Athens, alongside Plato's Academy, Aristotle's Lyceum, and Epicurus'
Garden, where it flourished for some 250 years. It proved especially popular
among the Romans, attracting admirers as diverse as the statesman Seneca, the
ex-slave Epictetus, and the Emperor Marcus Aurelius. The works of these three
authors have come down to us and have won admirers from the Renaissance through
to the present day. Although the philosophy of Stoicism as a whole is complex,
embracing everything from metaphysics to astronomy to grammar, the works of
the three great Roman Stoics focus on practical advice and guidance for those
trying to achieve wellbeing or happiness. Here are four central ideas:
- Value – the only thing that is truly good is an excellent
mental state, identified with virtue and reason. This is the only thing
that can guarantee our happiness. External things such as money, success,
fame and the like can never bring us happiness. Although there is nothing
wrong with these things and they do hold value and may well form part of
a good life, often the pursuit of these things actually damages the only
thing that can bring us happiness: an excellent, rational mental state.
- Emotions – our emotions are the project of our judgements,
of thinking that something good or bad is happening or is about to happen.
Many of our negative emotions are based on mistaken judgements, but because
they are due to our judgements it means they are within our control. Change
the judgements and you change the emotions. Despite the popular image, the
Stoic does not repress or deny his emotions; instead he simply doesn't have
them in the first place. This isn't as cold as it might at first sound:
we ought to overcome harmful, negative emotions that are based on mistaken
judgments while embracing correct positive emotions, replacing anger with
joy.
- Nature – the Stoics suggest we ought to live in harmony
with Nature. Part of what they mean by this is that we ought to acknowledge
that we but small parts of a larger, organic whole, shaped by larger processes
that are ultimately out of our control. There is nothing to be gained from
trying to resist these larger processes except anger, frustration, and disappointment.
While there are many things in the world that we can change, there are many
others we cannot and we need to understand this and accept it.
- Control – in the light of what we have seen, there
are some things we have control over (our judgements, our own mental state)
and some things that we do not (external processes and objects). Much of
our unhappiness is caused by confusing these two categories: thinking we
have control over something that ultimately we do not. Happily the one thing
we do have control over is the only thing that can guarantee a good, happy
life.
The three Roman Stoics Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius offer a wide
range of practical advice aimed at helping people incorporate these ideas into
their daily lives.
Notable quotes:
"... Stoicism took off because it offered security and peace in a time of warfare and crisis. The Stoic creed didn't promise material security or a peace in the afterlife; but it did promise an unshakable happiness in this life. ..."
"... Stoicism tells us that no happiness can be secure if it's rooted in changeable, destructible things. Our bank accounts can grow or shrink, our careers can prosper or falter, even our loved ones can be taken from us. There is only one place the world can't touch: our inner selves, our choice at every moment to be brave, to be reasonable, to be good. ..."
"... The world might take everything from us; Stoicism tells us that we all have a fortress on the inside. The Stoic philosopher Epictetus, who was born a slave and crippled at a young age, wrote: "Where is the good? In the will…If anyone is unhappy, let him remember that he is unhappy by reason of himself alone." ..."
"... While it's natural to cry out at pain, the Stoic works to stay indifferent to everything that happens on the outside, to stay equally happy in times of triumph and disaster. It's a demanding way of life, but the reward it offers is freedom from passion–freedom from the emotions that so often seem to control us, when we should control them. A real Stoic isn't unfeeling. But he or she does have a mastery of emotions, because Stoicism recognizes that fear or greed or grief only enter our minds when we willingly let them in. ..."
"... But Stoicism is still there at the foundation of the Christian religion, in some of its most basic terms and concepts. ..."
"... before we try to control events, we have to control ourselves first. Our attempts to exert influence on the world are subject to chance, disappointment, and failure–but control of the self is the only kind that can succeed 100% of the time ..."
"... The Stoics taught that we fail far more often than we succeed, that to be human is to be fearful, selfish, and angry far more often than we'd like. ..."
Sep 28, 2012 | Forbes
we've spent the past few years studying and writing on another politician
famous for his coolness: Cato the Younger.
He was a practitioner of Stoicism, an ancient Greek religion that he helped
bring to Rome. We aren't claiming that the president's a secret Stoic. But we
do think that the public response to his self-control shows how poorly Stoic
qualities can go over in our times: a philosophy built on emotional control
seems strange in the age of over-sharing.
... ... ...
We think that's a shame. Stoicism still has a tremendous amount to teach
us, especially in these passion-saturated times. What's more, the Stoic legacy
has shaped our world in more ways than you might expect. Here are five reasons
why Stoicism matters:
1. It was built for hard times.
Stoicism was born in a world falling apart. Invented in Athens just a few
decades after Alexander the Great's conquests and premature death upended the
Greek world, Stoicism took off because it offered security and peace in a time
of warfare and crisis. The Stoic creed didn't promise material security or a
peace in the afterlife; but it did promise an unshakable happiness in this life.
Stoicism tells us that no happiness can be secure if it's rooted in changeable,
destructible things. Our bank accounts can grow or shrink, our careers can prosper
or falter, even our loved ones can be taken from us. There is only one place
the world can't touch: our inner selves, our choice at every moment to be brave,
to be reasonable, to be good.
The world might take everything from us; Stoicism tells us that we all have
a fortress on the inside. The Stoic philosopher Epictetus, who was born a slave
and crippled at a young age, wrote: "Where is the good? In the will…If anyone
is unhappy, let him remember that he is unhappy by reason of himself alone."
While it's natural to cry out at pain, the Stoic works to stay indifferent
to everything that happens on the outside, to stay equally happy in times of
triumph and disaster. It's a demanding way of life, but the reward it offers
is freedom from passion–freedom from the emotions that so often seem to control
us, when we should control them. A real Stoic isn't unfeeling. But he or she
does have a mastery of emotions, because Stoicism recognizes that fear or greed
or grief only enter our minds when we willingly let them in.
A teaching like that seems designed for a world on edge, whether it's the
chaotic world of ancient Greece, or a modern financial crisis. But then, Epictetus
would say that–as long as we try to place our happiness in perishable things–our
worlds are always on edge.
... ... ...
3. If you're Christian, you're already part-Stoic.
Imagine a religion that stressed human brotherhood under a benevolent creator
God; that told us to moderate and master our basic urges rather than giving
into them; that nevertheless insisted that all humans, because we're human,
are bound to fail at this mission; and that spent a lot of time talking about
"conscience" and the multiple aspects, or "persons," of a unitary God. All of
that might sound familiar. But the philosophy that invented all of those ideas
was not Christianity, but Stoicism.
It makes sense that Christianity is a deeply Stoic religion. Stoicism dominated
Roman culture for centuries - and Christianity went mainstream in the same culture.
What's more, many of the leaders of the early Christian church were former Stoics.
Of course Christianity borrowed much of its thought and terminology from Stoicism – because
thinking about religion in the early 1st millennium meant thinking like a Stoic.
As Christianity continued to grow, church leaders, who wanted to emphasize
the uniqueness of their faith, began to downplay this Stoic connection. But
Stoicism is still there at the foundation of the Christian religion, in some
of its most basic terms and concepts.
4. It's the unofficial philosophy of the military.
In 1965, James Stockdale's A-4E Skyhawk was shot down over Vietnam. He later
remembered the moment like this: "After ejection I had about thirty seconds
to make my last statement in freedom before I landed…And so help me, I whispered
to myself: 'Five years down there, at least. I'm leaving the world of technology
and entering the world of Epictetus.'"
Stockdale spent more than seven years in a Vietnamese prison, and he wrote
that Stoicism saved his life. Stockdale had spent years studying Stoic thought
before deploying, and he drew on those teachings to endure his captivity. These
words from Epictetus kept coming back to him: "Do you not know that life is
a soldier's service?…If you neglect your responsibilities when some severe order
is laid upon you, do you not understand to what a pitiful state you bring the
army?" While some of his fellow POWs tormented themselves with false hopes of
an early release, Stockdale's Stoic practice helped him confront the grim reality
of his situation, without giving in to despair and depression.
Stockdale was not alone as a military man who drew strength from Stoicism.
In her book The Stoic Warrior, Nancy Sherman, who taught philosophy at the Naval
Academy, argued that Stoicism is a driving force behind the military mindset
– especially in its emphasis on endurance, self-control, and inner strength.
As Sherman writes, whenever her philosophy class at Annapolis turned to the
Stoic thinkers, "many officers and students alike felt they had come home."
5. It's a philosophy for leadership.
Stoicism teaches us that, before we try to control events, we have to control
ourselves first. Our attempts to exert influence on the world are subject to
chance, disappointment, and failure–but control of the self is the only kind
that can succeed 100% of the time. From emperor Marcus Aurelius on, leaders
have found that a Stoic attitude earns them respect in the face of failure,
and guards against arrogance in the face of success.
... ... ...
Stoicism has an appeal for anyone who faces uncertainty–that is, for all
of us.
...Cato the Younger subscribed to this philosophy from his young adulthood
to his death, but he was also prone to violent outbursts of anger, obstinate
pride, and occasional drunkenness.
Yet in his most courageous moments–when he faced down the army of Julius
Caesar and certain defeat without blinking–Cato lived out the Stoic ideal.
The Stoics taught that we fail far more often than we succeed, that to be
human is to be fearful, selfish, and angry far more often than we'd like.
But they also taught a realistic way to be more.
The more we practice Stoic qualities in good times, the more likely that
we'll find them in ourselves when they're most needed.
... ... ...
So a little over a year ago, I decided to look elsewhere for advice, I decided to look to ancient
wisdom and created a project for myself that I call
The Ancient Wisdom Project.
The rules of the project are simple:
- Choose one ancient religion or philosophy that is 500 years old and that stills exist in some
form today
- Select one practice from the religion or philosophy that would help cultivate a desirable
virtue (compassion, humility, etc.)
- Perform the practice for thirty days and write about it
I kicked off my project with a month long experiment
in Stoicism. I was first introduced to this ancient philosophy in college, and found it quite
appealing.
After some research, I decided to embrace Stoicism by taking daily, 20-minute ice baths and practicing
negative visualization. Though the Stoics did not specifically recommend ice baths, they encouraged
practitioners to periodically and deliberately seek out physical hardship so that they could learn
to appreciate times when their lives were relatively tranquil.
After some research, I decided to embrace Stoicism by taking daily, 20-minute ice baths and practicing
negative visualization. Though the Stoics did not specifically recommend ice baths, they encouraged
practitioners to periodically and deliberately seek out physical hardship so that they could learn
to appreciate times when their lives were relatively tranquil.
Negative visualization (a term coined by the modern Stoic
William
Irvine) is the practice of imagining all the ways your life could be could be worse. You imagine
losing your job, your partner leaving you, your family members dying, etc. This is the mental version
of the ice baths. It trains you to appreciate your present circumstances and somewhat inoculate you
against actual tragedies that happen to you.
What I learned was powerful, especially when applied to problems of modern life. I share this
with you in the hope that you will be inspired to look to the ancients the next time you face some
sort of problem or dissatisfaction.
Body and mind in the game
After I prepped my first bath, I just stood there, watching it, imagining how cold it was going
to be. I thought to myself that maybe there were other Stoic activities that I could do that wouldn’t
involve lowering my core body temperature.
Eventually, I psyched myself up and got in.
It was…not warm.
The second day was tough, but less difficult. As was the third, and fourth, and by day 30, it
was no problem getting in.
*****
Stoicism was founded in 3rd century BCE Greece and later spread through the Roman Empire. What
is particularly interesting about Stoicism is that it was embraced by a wide variety of people from
all parts of the socio-economic spectrum. Epictetus was a former slave, Seneca was a wealthy Roman
statesman, and Marcus Aurelius was, of course, the Roman emperor.
Why would these incredibly different people embrace the philosophy of Stoicism?
It appears that regardless of our actual circumstances, all human beings have a knack for creating
problems for themselves, both real and imagined.
Epictetus who as a former slave experienced all manners of injustices (it’s rumored his master
broke his leg and crippled him), wrote;
Men are disturbed, not by things, but by the principles and notions which they form concerning
things. Death, for instance, is not terrible, else it would have appeared so to Socrates. But
the terror consists in our notion of death that it is terrible. When therefore we are hindered,
or disturbed, or grieved, let us never attribute it to others, but to ourselves; that is, to our
own principles.
It is human nature to want to create narratives as a way to understand things. This is generally
good and useful. It would be difficult to live life without thinking in terms of scripts, but often,
these scripts can cause us significant anxiety.
*****
My first ice bath was particularly anxiety inducing because I was making a judgment about cold
water. The “principle and notion” I was operating under was that cold water is bad and painful.
The correct judgment for this situation is that cold water is neither good or bad, it is simply…cold.
There is nothing to fear or get anxious about, it is what it is.
When I was in the ice bath, I learned to pay close attention to actual sensations. I paid attention
to the initial sensation of the water on my skin, I focused on my fingers and toes becoming numb,
and I enjoyed the comfort of the water warming up a bit.
Though it took a week or two, I learned to separate my judgment of ice baths from the actual sensations
of ice baths, and while it didn’t become enjoyable, they were no longer terrible.
*****
I chose ice baths because the practice was physically uncomfortable. And this practice taught
me how closely linked our minds and bodies are, and how it is sometimes necessary to separate the
two.
Though the Stoics did talk about enduring physical discomfort, they were also very attuned to
the metaphorical ice baths that we inevitably encounter in our lives
Hell is [your perception of] other people
During my Stoicism month, I was riding the metro and someone was playing their music really loudly;
everyone in our car could hear it through the guy’s headphones. That irritated me.
Another day, someone cut me off on the highway; that annoyed me.
Someone at work suggested a stupid idea and everyone else agreed with it. That made me want to
smack everyone.
*****
Marcus Aurelius was
a second century Roman emperor and practicing Stoic. As you can imagine, someone in his position
would have crushing responsibilities and an endless number of people that want something from him.
There’s something unique about annoyances that come from our fellow human beings. Though annoyances
of fate (car accidents, stubbing your toe, etc.) can be irritating, they have far less impact on
our spirit than we perceive someone else to cause us harm. Because we view others as autonomous individuals
with free will and because we are generally self-centered, we believe that others deliberately attempt
to get under our skin or that they get up every morning plotting your destruction.
Marcus Aurelius offered this advice to start your day in his
Meditations:
When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: The people I deal with today will be meddling,
ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous, and surly.
To start your day thinking other people will be irritating sets the bar pretty low. If you expect
people to behave poorly, then they can’t disappoint you.
But the late Roman Emperor didn’t just say expect the worst from the others. He also ended his
advice with an uplifting message, one that explains why people behave they way they do and the appropriate
response to them.
They are like this because they can’t tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of
good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to
my own— not of the same blood or birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine.
And so none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness. Nor can I feel angry at
my relative, or hate him. We were born to work together like feet, hands, and eyes, like the two
rows of teeth, upper and lower. To obstruct each other is unnatural. To feel anger at someone,
to turn your back on him: these are obstructions.
To see that we all share a common nature, a “share of the divine,” is a great challenge, but one
that ultimately leads us to accept others for what they are and to lessen their power to anger or
irritate us.
*****
My girlfriend and I hosted a houseguest for a few days during my Stoic month. She had just moved
to D.C. and hadn’t found a place to live yet.
We live in a one-bedroom apartment so while it’s enough room to host an additional person, it
felt crowded very quickly.
Benjamin Franklin wrote “houseguests and fish stink after three days.” Mine stunk after one. She
rummaged through our fridge and was a complainy-pants about how hard it was to find an apartment,
get a job, etc.
Fortunately, I was able to embrace the Stoic practices of negative visualization and “consider
the nature of things.” I used negative visualization to imagine all the ways my life could be worse.
When I moved back to D.C. I lived in a hostel. I shared a room with 5-8 other strangers every night
for a whole summer. Usually, there was a middle aged snoring man in it. My life has been and could
be far worse than living in my own apartments with a guest for a few days.
I also rationally examined the sources of my irritation. All the guest was doing was looking through
the fridge and making comments about her apartment search. Why should this bother me? It’s only because
I think she is violating some houseguest norms and is less optimistic than she should be that I’m
irritated. If I wanted to simplify it ever further, it is just movement and noise, nothing to suffer
over.
We are still friends with the houseguest and she has successful settled in the DC area. It’s now
easy to see that she was simply struggling with the initial transition and that her behavior as a
guest was not representative of her true nature.
To see through the fog of our own perceptions is a great challenge, but practicing this can ultimately
help us not only be less irritated, but also positively contribute to someone else’s well being.
Success is virtue
Though we often associate being “Stoic” with being some sort of pain endurance machine, there
was also an active, positive component to the philosophy as well, one centered on duty and the cultivation
of virtue.
I read an article about Goldman Sachs that talked about how awesome it was to work there, and
of course, how much money its employees made. After seeing that the average compensation was $380k,
I was just about ready to brush up on my stock trading skills and leave for New York. One of the
core beliefs in American culture is that anyone, with hard work and a little luck, can become successful.
It’s the land of opportunity. Cadillac
released a commercial last
year that aptly portrays what many of us value: working hard to buy stuff and attain prestige.
It’s clear how Stoicism can help us when we are striving to achieve something and we encounter
obstacles. The lessons of detachment are powerful, and worthy of adoption. But Stoicism can also
teach us what things are and are not worth striving for.
*****
Epictetus was a former slave who learned to live honorably and virtuously in spite of his circumstances.
He did not complain about everyone that had wronged him, or mourned what could have been. He played
the metaphorical cards he was dealt.
Remember that you are an actor in a drama, of such a kind as the author pleases to make
it. If short, of a short one; if long, of a long one. If it is his pleasure you should act a poor
man, a cripple, a governor, or a private person, see that you act it naturally. For this is your
business, to act well the character assigned you; to choose it is another’s.
Seneca was a wealthy statesman and advisor who taught that living a life dedicated to philosophy
was the highest path one can take. It is not just a pastime, but rather, a way of enriching and adding
meaning to life.
Philosophy is no trick to catch the public; it is not devised for show. It is a matter,
not of words, but of facts. It is not pursued in order that the day may yield some amusement before
it is spent, or that our leisure may be relieved of a tedium that irks us. It molds and constructs
the soul; it orders our life, guides our conduct, shows us what we should do and what we should
leave undone; it sits at the helm and directs our course as we waver amid uncertainties. Without
it, no one can live fearlessly or in peace of mind. Countless things that happen every hour call
for advice; and such advice is to be sought in philosophy.
Marcus Aurelius did not complain about the immense burden of his position as Roman Emperor. He
knew that he had a duty to serve the people of the Roman Empire to the best of his ability, and do
it virtuously.
If, at some point in your life, you should come across anything better than justice, honesty,
self-control, courage— than a mind satisfied that it has succeeded in enabling you to act rationally,
and satisfied to accept what’s beyond its control— if you find anything better than that, embrace
it without reservations—it must be an extraordinary thing indeed—and enjoy it to the full…
It would be wrong for anything to stand between you and attaining goodness—as a rational
being and a citizen. Anything at all: the applause of the crowd, high office, wealth, or self-indulgence.
All of them might seem to be compatible with it—for a while. But suddenly they control us and
sweep us away.
These Stoics never said you had to join the ranks of the upper middle class to be successful.
They never said you had to win awards or fame in order to confidently say your life was worth living.
In fact, they said fame and wealth are not worth striving for, and can actually be detrimental
to your soul.
*****
For every hour of TV you watch, you are bombarded with approximately 20 minutes of commercials.
They seem harmless enough, even entertaining. But the cumulative effect of advertising (TV or otherwise)
is highlight detrimental to our search for meaning and happiness. TV commercials are obvious in their
intent, but we absorb harmful messages from other medium as well.
The Goldman Sachs article I mentioned, while not explicitly an advertisement, advocates a life
dedicated to attaining wealth for wealth’s sake. We might think we’re immune to this message
and that we’re not as greedy as those evil investment bankers, but think about all the times you’ve
researched other jobs because you felt you were underpaid and that you deserved more. Or perhaps
you’ve been disappointed by the fact that you can only afford Ikea furniture and can only window-shop
at Pottery Barn.
Unless we explicitly reject the pursuit of wealth and success as a good in and of itself, we are
at risk of being swept away by this pursuit.
Better that we learn from the Stoics how to use every moment of our lives as an opportunity to
demonstrate virtue. Has someone offended you? Learn to control your anger and remember that you too,
share the same flawed nature. Didn’t get that promotion you thought you deserved? Analyze the nature
of titles and recognition and discover that they are mostly meaningless. Instead, focus your energies
on serving others, to making the life of another a little bit easier.
Make sure you remain straightforward, upright, reverent, serious, unadorned, an ally of
justice, pious, kind, affectionate, and doing your duty with a will. Fight to be the person philosophy
tried to make you.
Revere the gods; watch over human beings. Our lives are short. The only rewards of our existence
here are an unstained character and unselfish act—Marcus Aurelius
*****
During my project, I started volunteering at a homeless service organization that serves meals
to the homeless. Though I only make a very small contribution, those few hours a month force me to
focus on someone other than myself. It’s actually quite a relief! Thinking about yourself and
what you want but don’t have is exhausting.
That lesson spans across all the religions and philosophies I have experimented with to
date, which makes me believe that it is worth embracing.
It’s easier said than done.
I recently became an independent contractor and work on a project for my former employer. I now
make double what I did before, and I work less hours overall.
I’m happy about the change, but I’ve noticed I’ve become quite obsessed with making more money.
I think about different ways I can increase my hourly rate, new projects I can I join, the different
investments I can make, etc.
While some amount of this thinking is prudent and useful, it is also a distraction from the Stoic
goal of embracing virtue. I think less about how I can serve others and more about my own financial
future.
What this tells us is that we must remain vigilant and aware of our own, baser desires and that
we must incorporate reminders into our daily lives to ensure we strive to be better than we normally
are, to strive to serve others, to be detached from material ambitions.
The virtue-centered path is not easy, and certainly less sexy than trying to become a worldly
success, but the benefits will be far more impactful and reach deeper into the core of who we are.
Should you take ice baths and embrace ancient wisdom?
I started The Ancient Wisdom Project not because I wanted to find out which religion or philosophy
was the “best” or to try to convert myself. I started it because I felt something lacking in modern
life and modern advice wasn’t cutting it. What I’ve learned so far is that ancient philosophies and
religions and philosophies that have survived until present-day are far greater sources for advice
and wisdom on how to live than the latest self-help/lifestyle design/productivity/business book.
Ancient wisdom prescribes guidelines for dealing with hardship, transcending the ego, and serving
others. It teaches us what things can lead us astray from the things we should care about, and how
to deal with them. It teaches us how to be okay with our imperfect nature and to move on.
There is nothing about ice baths that will make your life better per se. But anchoring
an ancient wisdom idea or principle in a concrete ritual or habit will make it more tangible and
help you absorb it in a deeper way. It’s one thing to read about Stoicism, it’s another to manifest
them in your daily actions.
If you feel that some part of your life feels off or unsatisfactory, I highly recommend looking
to Stoicism or other ancient philosophies and see if any of their advice is applicable to your situation.
Once you do so, find some way to actually act on that advice in a routine or habitual way. Every
time you perform the ritual, reflect on the ideas you’ve discovered.
I am certain that the results of this exercise will be far more meaningful than reading articles
about finding your passion or starting an online business and will ultimately help you live a good
and virtuous life, one in accordance with your nature.
The only thing that isn’t worthless: to live this life out truthfully and rightly. And be
patient with those who don’t.—Marcus Aurelius
Dale Davidson is the creator and author of
The Ancient Wisdom Project.
He works as a government consultant in the Washington, D.C., area where ancient wisdom is sorely
needed.
Softpanorama Recommended
Quotes
Society
Groupthink :
Two Party System
as Polyarchy :
Corruption of Regulators :
Bureaucracies :
Understanding Micromanagers
and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers :
Harvard Mafia :
Diplomatic Communication
: Surviving a Bad Performance
Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as
Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience :
Who Rules America :
Neoliberalism
: The Iron
Law of Oligarchy :
Libertarian Philosophy
Quotes
War and Peace
: Skeptical
Finance : John
Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand :
Oscar Wilde :
Otto Von Bismarck :
Keynes :
George Carlin :
Skeptics :
Propaganda : SE
quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes :
Random IT-related quotes :
Somerset Maugham :
Marcus Aurelius :
Kurt Vonnegut :
Eric Hoffer :
Winston Churchill :
Napoleon Bonaparte :
Ambrose Bierce :
Bernard Shaw :
Mark Twain Quotes
Bulletin:
Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient
markets hypothesis :
Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 :
Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 :
Vol 23, No.10
(October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments :
Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 :
Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 :
Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan
(Win32/Crilock.A) :
Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers
as intelligence collection hubs :
Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 :
Inequality Bulletin, 2009 :
Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 :
Copyleft Problems
Bulletin, 2004 :
Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 :
Energy Bulletin, 2010 :
Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26,
No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult :
Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 :
Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification
of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05
(May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method :
Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law
History:
Fifty glorious years (1950-2000):
the triumph of the US computer engineering :
Donald Knuth : TAoCP
and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman
: Linus Torvalds :
Larry Wall :
John K. Ousterhout :
CTSS : Multix OS Unix
History : Unix shell history :
VI editor :
History of pipes concept :
Solaris : MS DOS
: Programming Languages History :
PL/1 : Simula 67 :
C :
History of GCC development :
Scripting Languages :
Perl history :
OS History : Mail :
DNS : SSH
: CPU Instruction Sets :
SPARC systems 1987-2006 :
Norton Commander :
Norton Utilities :
Norton Ghost :
Frontpage history :
Malware Defense History :
GNU Screen :
OSS early history
Classic books:
The Peter
Principle : Parkinson
Law : 1984 :
The Mythical Man-Month :
How to Solve It by George Polya :
The Art of Computer Programming :
The Elements of Programming Style :
The Unix Hater’s Handbook :
The Jargon file :
The True Believer :
Programming Pearls :
The Good Soldier Svejk :
The Power Elite
Most popular humor pages:
Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society :
Ten Commandments
of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection
: BSD Logo Story :
The Cuckoo's Egg :
IT Slang : C++ Humor
: ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? :
The Perl Purity Test :
Object oriented programmers of all nations
: Financial Humor :
Financial Humor Bulletin,
2008 : Financial
Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related
Humor : Programming Language Humor :
Goldman Sachs related humor :
Greenspan humor : C Humor :
Scripting Humor :
Real Programmers Humor :
Web Humor : GPL-related Humor
: OFM Humor :
Politically Incorrect Humor :
IDS Humor :
"Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian
Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer
Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church
: Richard Stallman Related Humor :
Admin Humor : Perl-related
Humor : Linus Torvalds Related
humor : PseudoScience Related Humor :
Networking Humor :
Shell Humor :
Financial Humor Bulletin,
2011 : Financial
Humor Bulletin, 2012 :
Financial Humor Bulletin,
2013 : Java Humor : Software
Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor :
Education Humor : IBM
Humor : Assembler-related Humor :
VIM Humor : Computer
Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled
to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer
Humor
The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org
was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP)
without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively
for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License.
Original materials copyright belong
to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only
in compliance with the fair use doctrine.
FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society. We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
Last modified:
December, 20, 2016