How to Be a Stoic (2016)(newyorker.com) |
How to Be a Stoic (2016)(newyorker.com) |
The short of it is: nothing is good or bad, but things can be too much or too little. Where the line is depends or circumstances and is different every time. And the correct answer is mostly only available in hindsight if it is at all.
Pain is useful. We know physical pain is because there are people who don't feel any and they injure themselves all the time. I find no reason or evidence emotional pain is any different.
I saw perpetually and unconditionally happy people. In a mental asylum. Enough said.
Trying to give up desire? Then what would motivate you do do anything at all? "money, health, sex, or reputation" are good things. You might exaggerate in these desires but that's a "too much of anything" problem, not a desire problem.
Taking examples from the article: getting angry with a service provider can convince him not to try to wrong you in the future and save you unhappiness this way. Getting angry with people on the street giving you dirty looks doesn't work because they are many and different every time. But still, that anger can convince you that you should move. And maybe you should.
That sounds like a very stoic point of view, reminds me of Marcus Aurelius's meditations. It's worth a read.
https://marcusaureliusmeditations.weebly.com/index.html
The case can be made that he mostly wrote what he thought of as ideal and how we would like to see himself, but often failed to apply it in practice because as I propose life is more complex than any particular philosophy.
I agree, it really does sound like an argument for stoicism.
Now that I think of it, I guess most neuroses nowadays stems from environmental changes we weren't able to adapt to quickly enough (global communication, oversaturation from violent and sexual imagery, etc.) and not from desires that are inherently bad.
> The golden mean or golden middle way is the desirable middle between two extremes, one of excess and the other of deficiency.
(I do realize the irony of answering such to someone who just declared they don’t find philosophies useful)
While I can not be completely exhaustive in HN comment, I did point out that my issue is with having a philosophy that predetermines in a generalized way where that golden middle way is. And the difference between seeing it in hindsight and trying to predict it.
I do not find philosophies useless, just not recipes for living your life like the author of the article tries.
(Though, from the list "reputation" is the trickiest one. Reputation is precisely what OTHERS think about you; you have a limited control of that.)
Kicks off personal viewpoint with key element of Stoic thinking :)
There's a line I like from (of all people) Jerry Seinfeld, that's something like "pain is the feeling of truth rushing in". That's not always true, some people experience pain disconnected from any meaning, but a lot of times it is.
There are two limitations with this proposition. First; most of the useful "philosophies", by which you mean schools of philosophies, and by that we actually mean "wisdom traditions", have already been incorporated into many aspects of the mainstream culture that they are as invisible to us as the pair of glasses we wear. Participated in any Abrahamic religion? You've also made use of Stoicism. Done any CBT therapy? You have practiced being a stoic. Read Hamlet's "there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so", you've heard Epictetus. Quoted the serenity prayer? Quoted one of the central Stoic maxims.
The second issue is parts of any doctrine that gives a didactic, algorithmic way of solving life's problems, are not the bits related to wisdom. Think it like the static data of any tradition, vs the executable bits, in which an on-the-fly heuristic needs to be run to actually approximate the optimal. Wisdom traditions only aim to sharpen the heuristic strategies, not to hand feed ready made solutions, because the problem space is inexhaustibly complex and the environment constantly changes.
The "should" statements you encounter in Marcus Aurelius's Meditations, or Epictetus's Enchiridion etc, are not the ready made answers you should take to heart. They are the example outputs that give you the perspective to train your own heuristic. It increases your chances to recognize the life inputs that Stoic optimizations can be applied to.
The core formulation of Stoicism is actually very simple, avoid agency ascription errors; don't take on anything you don't have control over, don't relinquish anything agency you do actually have. Constantly focus on what you can actually do, not the shoulds, oughts, would haves.
> Pain is useful.
Disease states exist, in which one is stuck in pain that is not useful. Chronic pain, phantom pain, chronic depression etc. They are pain states that have lost their utility.
> I saw perpetually and unconditionally happy people. In a mental asylum.
Likewise, this is a disease state too. Unconditionally happy people cannot survive "in the wild"; it is not adaptive or relevant to be happy in face of all life inputs. That is why mania is equally serious condition as depression, even though one feels more egosyntonic.
> The short of it is: nothing is good or bad, but things can be too much or too little. Where the line is depends or circumstances and is different every time. And the correct answer is mostly only available in hindsight if it is at all
Good or bad already implies too much or too little. E.g the original meaning of "sin" is missing the mark. It is the residual error we have anytime we apply our heuristics.
If the local optimal point was only available in hindsight though, we couldn't have survived as a species thus far (not saying we are missing some better optimum and we will definitely survive). But turns out our strategies have been good enough (and getting better) to make us pretty OK general problem solvers. If our heuristics was so low precision, we couldn't even talk and understand one another, which requires mentalizing the state of mind of the recipient.
We didn't survive as a species thanks to life guiding philosophy or in general thanks to a conscious thinking process in which we tried to predict the future. When even our greatest people tried to do that it more often resulted in unpredicted results than not.
I can make a case for believing we can though. It is a most powerful motivator for action and association. So maybe the lesson is don't have a philosophy for yourself but have one for your would be followers?
I believe Stoicism teaches not to ignore pain, but to change our emotional response. To be more thoughtful and rational about causes of pain. And yes, ignoring a pain is the best strategy if there are absolutely no ways to avoid it (e.g. you can't change a past that causes unhappiness).
This is a very poor reading of the Stoic philosophy, and a direct contradiction Epictetus' instructions (Long quote ahead, but it's essentially a direct response to this sort of criticism, so I think getting it all out at once is worthwhile):
>To the rational animal only is the irrational intolerable; but that which is rational is tolerable. Blows are not naturally intolerable. "How is that?" See how the Lacedaemonians endure whipping when they have learned that whipping is consistent with reason. "To hang yourself is not intolerable." When, then, you have the opinion that it is rational, you go and hang yourself. In short, if we observe, we shall find that the animal man is pained by nothing so much as by that which is irrational; and, on the contrary, attracted to nothing so much as to that which is rational.
>But the rational and the irrational appear such in a different way to different persons, just as the good and the bad, the profitable and the unprofitable. For this reason, particularly, we need discipline, in order to learn how to adapt the preconception of the rational and the irrational to the several things conformably to nature. But in order to determine the rational and the irrational, we use not only the of external things, but we consider also what is appropriate to each person. For to one man it is consistent with reason to hold a chamber pot for another, and to look to this only, that if he does not hold it, he will receive stripes, and he will not receive his food: but if he shall hold the pot, he will not suffer anything hard or disagreeable. But to another man not only does the holding of a chamber pot appear intolerable for himself, but intolerable also for him to allow another to do this office for him. If, then, you ask me whether you should hold the chamber pot or not, I shall say to you that the receiving of food is worth more than the not receiving of it, and the being scourged is a greater indignity than not being scourged; so that if you measure your interests by these things, go and hold the chamber pot. "But this," you say, "would not be worthy of me." Well, then, it is you who must introduce this consideration into the inquiry, not I; for it is you who know yourself, how much you are worth to yourself, and at what price you sell yourself; for men sell themselves at various prices.
>For this reason, when Florus was deliberating whether he should go down to Nero's spectacles and also perform in them himself, Agrippinus said to him, "Go down": and when Florus asked Agrippinus, "Why do not you go down?" Agrippinus replied, "Because I do not even deliberate about the matter." For he who has once brought himself to deliberate about such matters, and to calculate the value of external things, comes very near to those who have forgotten their own character. For why do you ask me the question, whether death is preferable or life? I say "life." "Pain or pleasure?" I say "pleasure." But if I do not take a part in the tragic acting, I shall have my head struck off. Go then and take a part, but I will not. "Why?" Because you consider yourself to be only one thread of those which are in the tunic. Well then it was fitting for you to take care how you should be like the rest of men, just as the thread has no design to be anything superior to the other threads. But I wish to be purple, that small part which is bright, and makes all the rest appear graceful and beautiful. Why then do you tell me to make myself like the many? and if I do, how shall I still be purple?
The Stoics do not say to desire nothing, only to desire those things which you can actually obtain, for as long as you can actually obtain them. Since Virtue is dependent only on one's own reasoning, and is therefore always available to everyone (Modern psychology has added some exceptions to this rule, but only of an exceptionally rare nature), it is the sole "Good" worth always pursuing, and other things which are sometimes within our reach and sometimes not are "Preferred Indifferents", which we choose to desire when we can have them (when we are willing to pay their price) and to not desire when we cannot, because it is in their nature to not be ours forever:
>With regard to whatever objects give you delight, are useful, or are deeply loved, remember to tell yourself of what general nature they are, beginning from the most insignificant things. If, for example, you are fond of a specific ceramic cup, remind yourself that it is only ceramic cups in general of which you are fond. Then, if it breaks, you will not be disturbed. If you kiss your child, or your wife, say that you only kiss things which are human, and thus you will not be disturbed if either of them dies.
"Much of Epictetus’ advice is about not getting angry at slaves. At first, I thought I could skip those parts. But I soon realized that I had the same self-recriminatory and illogical thoughts in my interactions with small-business owners and service professionals. When a cabdriver lied about a route, or a shopkeeper shortchanged me, I felt that it was my fault, for speaking Turkish with an accent, or for being part of an élite. And, if I pretended not to notice these slights, wasn’t I proving that I really was a disengaged, privileged oppressor? Epictetus shook me from these thoughts with this simple exercise: “Starting with things of little value—a bit of spilled oil, a little stolen wine—repeat to yourself: ‘For such a small price, I buy tranquillity.’ ”
Does this mean ignore it still ‘For such a small price, I buy tranquillity'?
EDIT: OK, turns out this is a repost of an article from 2016 where the same point above was already discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13730657
There's absolutely nothing wrong with getting employees to live healthier and more resilient lives, but the skeptic in me thinks that there may be other motives.
It shouldn't detract anyone from looking at stoicism though. You can get everything you need from it for free, although a few books and helping the Patreon of a few philosophers who work on making it accessible is still a worthy cause to spend some money on.
The traditional stoic view of suicide (including the classic defense) is quite offensive to modern humanist sensibilities. This gets in the way of monetization.
"what's in your control and what's not?"
How to Be a Stoic (2016) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19279613 - March 2019 (79 comments)
How to Be a Stoic - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13728197 - Feb 2017 (237 comments)
> (2) The Way of the Disillusioned "Sensible Man."—He soon decides that the whole thing was moonshine. "Of course," he says, "one feels like that when one's young. But by the time you get to my age you've given up chasing the rainbow's end." And so he settles down and learns not to expect too much and represses the part of himself which used, as he would say, "to cry for the moon." This is, of course, a much better way than the first, and makes a man much happier, and less of a nuisance to society. It tends to make him a prig (he is apt to be rather superior towards what he calls "adolescents"), but, on the whole, he rubs along fairly comfortably.
>It would be the best line we could take if man did not live for ever. But supposing infinite happiness really is there, waiting for us? Supposing one really can reach the rainbow's end? In that case it would be a pity to find out too late (a moment after death) that by our supposed "common sense" we had stifled in ourselves the faculty of enjoying it.
It seems that they are focused on taking away desires, just stop wanting things so much, stop trying to avoid pain and seek after pleasure. Which I agree in large part much of the misery we encounter in our daily life seems to stem from failure to adequately control our more reptilian impulses, but it also seems like the whole philosophy is about completely detaching from things, and as a wise man recently said "The only way to take the grief out of death is to take the love out of life."
I get that it can be less painful, but why optimize for avoiding pain instead of maximizing joy?
The only way to be a "stoic" is to use sunlight that hit a tree millions of years ago, that really belongs to your children.
You are in control, and my tip is don't burn that energy unless you really really need to, even if it feels good.
That and don't respond to criticizm with "what about you".
Responsability and respect, learn to use them, towards everything.
When I come across stoicism and read about it, I realized he has been living like a stoic his whole life. His way of approaching life is so aligned with the concept. And yet he has never read or heard about Epicteus.
I have been reading a lot of books about philosophy lately, but I realise the most you can learn is from people around you.
The books are often contradictory. In the exact same situation, a book titled why zebras don't get ulcers, the author claims venting out is much healthier to reduce stress. There was a study done which indicated people who vent out on the spot are less likely to be stressful (less stress harmone).
Observing how others deal with situations and picking the best out of them works out well for me.
When I come across a friend who managing a heated argument and is calm after ward, I try to learn from him. Understand why he is able to do so.
Interesting if that study checked the environment in each case. If you vent out at endless taxi drivers, real estate agents, shop salesmen or something like that, wouldn’t it only make you constantly angry?
Psychologists say that we have to express, not exactly vent out. Expressing emotions is telling others how you feel, so they could adjust their behavior or attitude accordingly. In 90% of cases, words about what you feel are enough.
“It confuses me when you leave papers on my table with no comments”
“I feel angry if my cup is not where I left it”
“I’m sad about you trying to fool me”
Saying that without usual “venting out” expression is more constructive. That’s how you feel. They usually don’t know until you tell them.
The key point is what you feel, not some random noun/adjective (it may be hard to detect and verbalize for first 50 times). Angry mode is a force that you use when people refuse to comply. But often they aren’t even aware of your issue (or unable to help you).
(This comment is very fragmentary and tangential, but I leave it at that.)
No, that is not whole of it. Psychologists don't say you should speak purely to make other people what you want. And also, talking about how you feel don't work all that great in achieving what you want.
They promote activities like journaling or talk to process what is in your mind and to manage own mind. So you end up expressing unprocessed ideas, feelings, thoughts and emotions. You do it for yourself.
Yes, most Stoic thought is about attempting to do your best to attain the ideals, not that you'll suddenly perfectly attain them.
Sort of like how meditation has the common misconception that you're doing it wrong if your thoughts wander. No, the point is acknowledge the wandering, bring your thoughts back to your breath, and keep trying.
Also, reading through that undergrad student's critique, I disagree with many of them characterizing his words as contradictions. I don't think many strong arguments were made that he was being very contradicting. One of them implies he was being contradictory by making humanitarian laws benefiting children. Because he had lost many children, and wrote that only "right and reason" should guide you, not the loss of a child. Like it couldn't be that the humanitarian laws were due to "right and reason" as opposed to emotion from losing his kids.
I've read him extensively and multiple translations. Your original post is strongly stoic, although the "tune out to it all and just live a good life" is a bit more Epicurean[0].
Stoicism is not about being a neutral perfectly calm emotionless robot. Stoicism is recognizing that you ultimately can't control the world, you can just control your (re)actions. The entire ethical system stems from that realization. Death or dying isn't "bad", it's just "not preferred", because the only good and bad things centre around things you can control. Everything else is just life. Roll with it.
(Personally, I'm with you though. I've learnt to eschew the labels and just lead a common sense life; but I do pick and choose from the valuable ethical systems over time.)
It's not surprising that somebody else thought of that philosophy before. The question is, did they think of it any better? Do they have anything useful to add over what you came up with?
That is not nearly the same as thinking you are terribly unique.
Nowadays, I have a pretty good grasp when someone really wants helpful input for their problem and when someone simply wants to vent. And while it still causes certain feelings inside myself whenever I hear someone vent (especially when it's clear that they are simply complaining and not doing anything about it), I view those situations as opportunities to grow by managing how I react to those things. Ideally, I simply accept that they are not my problems and go on with my life. (That's definitely a work in progress though.)
Also, I'm pretty sure many Eastern philosophies have concepts of good and bad.
Not sure I understand you correctly here. Choosing to build shelters from the inevitable elements, storing food for the winter months, building traps to capture animals that may walk by at some point, etc... seem like crucial, conscious, predictive behaviors that increased odds of survival. Are you talking about this type of predictive decision making, or something else?
In a way, we do fail pretty often at predicting, but if the gold standard is every other organism's creative predictive ability (as opposed to common instinctual behavior), we're actually quite good :).
You couldn't be more wrong. Consciousness, inferential thinking, symbolic processing, they are all selected because they give a tremendous adaptive advantage. To claim otherwise would be at best to claim they are mere spandrels.
> I can make a case for believing we can though. It is a most powerful motivator for action and association.
Believing we have agency where we don't is actually the most powerful reason for burnout and depression. Stoicism gives a corrective suggestion; engage in a questioning process in order not to overestimate your agency, but also not to underestimate it; don't forgo the predictive power you do have. It calls you to reframe your life's problems in a way where you salience the information about the degree of agency you might or might not have. Notice how there is no ready made answers for you to consume.
> So maybe the lesson is don't have a philosophy for yourself but have one for your would be followers?
I think you're conflating philosophy with indoctrination or dogma. Philosophy literally means love of wisdom. Wisdom is not a collection of propositions or assertions, it is roughly a hyper-parameter tuning process of our heuristics. One does not become wise, because it is not a terminal position. One aspires to cultivate wisdom, i.e. to work on their hyper-parameters. Philosophy is the dedication to this process.