When stoicism fails
I have stated this elsewhere, mostly in vague terms to myself as I didn't really figure out the cause of my own failings with maintaining a stoic calm and inner resolve... But, it seems as though I have left out the modern day notion of quite literally not having enough willpower and the resulting feelings of depletion. There's only so much luxury to desire, and there's only so much money one must be preoccupied with to make and make-do with. The phone calls and messages that drive you up the wall, the wars one must know about from your news channel, and the constant programming society nowadays puts you through is quite a lot in regards to constantly maintaining indifference as an attitude.
Once again, I will criticize not stoicism per se; but, the modern day desire to be immune from the sadness or distractions or apathy or indifference of daily living. I want to say that the practice of stoicism is an active task to remind oneself every-day. Meaning, (at least to me) it takes willpower to be stoic and calm. There is a real allure or reward of stoicisms promise of staying sane or achieving inner calm. I wouldn't go as far and compare stoicism with Buddhism; but, there are parallels to the same art of, in a sense, self-mastery.
Having said the above, one does envy the life of the ancient stoics, to a degree. They were not preoccupied with the social life of the modern era. Instead, they met, drank, had discussions on the events of the senate, were consulted with since everyone in Rome was in one way or another affected by the Greek philosophers. I don't know what more to say, am I moping here? Maybe I should resign myself to feeling inadequate in terms of my coping strategies.
What has been your experience with stoicism, or what do you think is the issue here? Thoughts and comments welcome.
Once again, I will criticize not stoicism per se; but, the modern day desire to be immune from the sadness or distractions or apathy or indifference of daily living. I want to say that the practice of stoicism is an active task to remind oneself every-day. Meaning, (at least to me) it takes willpower to be stoic and calm. There is a real allure or reward of stoicisms promise of staying sane or achieving inner calm. I wouldn't go as far and compare stoicism with Buddhism; but, there are parallels to the same art of, in a sense, self-mastery.
Having said the above, one does envy the life of the ancient stoics, to a degree. They were not preoccupied with the social life of the modern era. Instead, they met, drank, had discussions on the events of the senate, were consulted with since everyone in Rome was in one way or another affected by the Greek philosophers. I don't know what more to say, am I moping here? Maybe I should resign myself to feeling inadequate in terms of my coping strategies.
What has been your experience with stoicism, or what do you think is the issue here? Thoughts and comments welcome.
Comments (43)
Well if you're interested in my take on pop-psychology, I think that stoicism has appealed to many as a refuge where they can regenerate or escape from the world through a attitude of indifference. This has been my goal for many years, and I don't want to speak for others; but, it may have been something of interest to others. What I aim at is a better understanding why I am not happy with my own progress, which I won't ask others to diagnose; but, perhaps see if what I am saying might be true. So, the habituation of studying stoicism and practicing it, as one would praise God every Sunday, to the stoic being, maintaining an attitude of indifference.
Do you practice any sport or fitness regimen? I suspect that is a factor. The root of 'asceticism' is actually 'askesis' meaning 'training', and I'm sure many of the classical Stoics were fighting fit. Indifference to heat and cold and to physical discomfort is not something that is acquired by thinking about it. That's one reason that modern culture is inimical to stoicism - it has accustomed us to previously unheard-of levels of pleasure and comfort and encourages only the pursuit of consumption.
(Note to self: follow your own advice! :rage: )
Interesting that the suggestion of physical fitness is immediately interpreted as 'self-torture' ;-)
Well, most stoics believed in the practice of stoic logic, much of which has been lost to history.
Quoting Leontiskos
To the first, I believe that practicing indifference is something that one has to desire or will into the way one behaves or thinks. Stoics could be ranked as some of the most sensitive and in-tune people with human nature. Otherwise we never would have heard of Epictetus, or the ancient logician, Chrysippus... and then there's Seneca, who kind of had everything a person could desire.
To the second question, there is actually a school of philosophy called 'cynicism', which stoics admired and thought, the cynics, made a shortcut to virtue. I am not so confident to become a cynic as of soon.
That's not the part that caught my attention. I enjoy working out and have been doing it religiously my whole life.
Quoting Wayfarer
Sound a lot like self-torture to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutter_punk is the modern phenomena I associate with ancient cynic philosophy.
I agree with you in a Dopamine Nation sort of way.
As others have said, it seems a little too tortuous to do that. A drill sergeant couldn't motivate me to work out.
I agree with the whole online identity thing as pretty nasty stuff. A lot of the magic behind advertising is to appeal to your pleasure center of the brain, thus distracting you or at worse running you on a hedonic treadmill. YouTube seems like a harmless activity; but, there's a lot of programming going on with behaviorizing you to respond to cue's.
But seriously, is there any end to consumption? Can one draw a line hard and fast over how illustrious wants can be detrimental to a person?
Yes, well, I guess if one sifts the chaff for the hay, then the cynics had something to say, as would the people you linked. The rest just want drugs or are mentally ill.
From my reading, I can't but see a modern day young German guy being those types. Punk not dead, antifa and all that.
Hey Im also wrestling with all this. I often feel - actually I know - Ive been corrupted by the society Ive been born into. Its a constant battle - the original meaning of jihad was spiritual struggle, although thats been corrupted too.
One thing I do know. In my late 20's I discovered the joy of running. I never became a competitive runner or joined races or anything of the kind, but I discovered that I could run 5 or 10km regularly, and that it produced a fantastic feeling of like having had your whole body taken apart and re-assembled. I guess that was an endorphin thing, 'runner's high'. It was hugely effective as a mood stabiliser. Those days are long gone, but I still work out at gym.
Anyway, there's definitely a link between modern society and mental well-being. Hence the appeal of stoicism, paleo food, and all the other 'return to the ancients' kinds of movements, but it takes more than reading about it.
Well, I've asked this many times before; but, the hippies got some of this right, yet veered off into hedonism, as a virtue. It then sabotaged anything they had to say to take this route.
Quoting Wayfarer
Well, we do live in a democratic world at the moment, yet the whole world is concerned about such terror watchlist flagging terms. I don't know how things went so bad after 9/11.
Quoting Wayfarer
Assuredly. I guess this goes into the realm of practicing philosophy; but, go ahead and find a practicing philosopher. As you said in another thread, there is definitely a revival of ancient stoicism and philosophy. A lot of people are talking about, for sure.
Stoicism is about eradicating suffering by detaching from things outside of one's control; and it makes a really good pragmatic philosophy for normal life. However, it is worth noting that you must self-reflect on what you should be doing with your life (rationally) and then utilize any irrational emotions you have as fuel (if applicable) to achieve it: so, technically, the best approach is not always to eradicate the pathos.
Ultimately, I would say that Stoicism is about living a life guided by rationality and reason; and to only use emotions when it suits them.
If you are struggling to implement Stoic principles in your life, then try reading (and re-reading) the meditations and implement a robust lifestyle-structure to build self-discipline and self-integrity. Then move from continence to temperance.
Nietzsche does have a good point that it is essential to the human condition to have irrational emotional responses to things; and it is seems kind of wrong to completely eradicate that. E.g., do you really NOT want to shed a tear at your mom's funeral?
I don't think one needs a philosophy or lifestyle to want drugs or be mentally ill.
Yes, this can be said about the stoic practice of negative visualization. I have practiced it quite a lot, which had led me to apathy. The stoic conception of apathy has been called mistaken in English form, more in close line with a passionless state, leading to tranquility. I find it difficult to understand how the stoic sage would have to become somewhat apathetic in every regard to be labeled a sage.
Quoting Bob Ross
Strange, I went from the Meditations to the Enchiridion, and then to On Desire, and then towards understanding CBT in how it trains the mind to think rationally or less irrationally. To be honest, I haven't really focused on the cardinal virtues of stoicism, as every stoic appeared to me as an individual.
Both of which would suck, I imagine.
So there exist some modern cynics, or some rough equivalent there -- all social backgrounds include people who want drugs or are mentally ill because social backgrounds, or philosophies, don't select for those things.
Don't I know. Not that I was ever really full-blown counter-culture, but it definitely was a major influence, and not all for the good.
But then, as you will know, at least some of the counter-culture went East and found roshis and rinpoches to practice under. And at least of those were not corrupted or led astray by the same acid bath of modernity (although some were, as I also know from experience.) But the point was, Buddhism and Vedanta, at least, and some of the Chinese religious philosophies, seem able to have carried forward elements of their culture into the modern world, in a way that Christian culture generally did not.
First of all, Stoicism makes no such promise.
Stoicism is not a self-help philosophy.
These ancient (and for the most part a lot better) versions of self-help tools are not the ends of Stoicism but tools to help in one's Stoic tasks: the journey towards the good.
Quoting Bob Ross
Again, as above, the purpose of recognizing what is out of one's control is to recognize what is in one's control: one's intention towards the good, utilizing whatever powers and tools one happens to have by circumstance, resulting in the above mentioned journey towards the good from one's starting point.
The purpose of Stoic practice is that (in most circumstances, or then at least most circumstances the ancient Stoics encountered) such practices are useful. Useful for what? Useful to express one's intention towards the good by developing one's skills, faculties and discipline.
For, simply saying "my intention is good" does not make it so, if one's intention really is good then one will actually go and attempt to do good things and as an extension prepare oneself for the task in a reasonable way (i.e not preparing indefinitely and never actually doing what one is preparing for, nor under preparing and so going and failing in a completely foreseeable and preventable way).
Now, the ultimate results of such attempts are not under our control, so one must seek to be detached even from the idea one may actually do any good, but making the honest attempt is under our control.
The very heart of Stoicism is not letting our lack of control over external circumstances (including our own faculties such as a limited supply of "willpower") neither to discourage the pursuit of the good nor form any excuses in making the best attempt towards the good we are able.
There is no absolute moral scale in Stoicism as measured in external accomplishments, as we do not control our circumstances that are a prerequisite for this or that accomplishment nor the part of serendipity involved in doing anything, but essentially the worst one can do is engage in self-deception that one is limited by external circumstances, therefore one cannot do good, when there is not the limitations that one imagines in reality.
Stoicism is not a philosophy of accepting things as they are in the sense of therefore being indifferent and not doing anything, but rather accepting things as they are to then do one's best in whatever real circumstances one finds oneself in: which maybe prison, maybe poverty, maybe severe cognitive limitations, maybe trauma, maybe the emperor or Rome.
The modern version of Stoicism is "give me the strength to endure what cannot be changed and also the delusion of believing I can't really change anything, and also the wisdom to be able to find some pussy from time to time".
It obviously a complete farce.
The best way to see what stoicism is actually teaching is to sit down and think seriously of what good deeds one could have accomplished had one really put a maximum of effort into it: a maximum of self discipline, a maximum development of one's knowledge and abilities, figuring out and employing the best strategy with the greatest courage of execution, and indeed a maximum of self-care in order to best sustain the effort to its expected conclusion. Of course, there are no guarantees as to the results (or even one's actions are in the right direction), but the teaching of Stoicism is to try to figure out what the maximum good you can do is and then some guidance in going and actually doing it.
I think Mencius encapsulates much of what Stoics believed. Not sure if Mencius was into a cyclical universe though?
Simplistically, Stoicism = "amor fati"
In the broader sense Stoicism is about cataleptic phantasia; 'true experience' and 'avoiding illusions/delusions'. You can kind of see where the Que sera sera attitude of stoicism came from I guess :)
I honestly think this modern, essentially commercial, version of Stoicism is pretty much simply due to the fact "stoic" remained a word with a at least some meaning and also some cultural cachet. People do understand what you mean when you say you're being "stoic about it" when faced with some setback.
Same phenomenon happened around the word "zen" coinciding with fascination (again nearly completely commercially driven) with far east spiritualism and mysticism.
If, however, you are not fleeing from the dissatisfaction of modern Western capitalism towards a sort of eastern nirvana of escapist platitudes but are instead convinced of the cultural superiority of modern Western capitalism, all while being equally dissatisfied with one's actual experience of modern Western capitalism, then "stoic" can essentially drop in for "zen" in the essentially the same commodified escapism product.
I.e. a "zen" brand for liberals and a "stoic" brand for conservatives on, as you say, a Que sera sera market place of feel-good intellectual trinkets and good luck charms.
Stoicism doesn't teach apathy: it teaches equanimity. That's a common misconception.
I am not following what you are critiquing of my comment; but I didn't suggest this "modern version" of Stoicism (which, FYI, isn't a version of Stoicism at all).
If I remember right the sign post points to the good instead the bad or the lazy because thats the road which is most inline with our nature (social beings with the capacity of reason), and living inline with our nature leads to wellbeing. Old or new the ultimate goal seems to be wellbeing, which might be characterized as sane and calm.
Thanks for backing me up here; but, my intent was to point at the secondary effect, or a real 'affect' stoicism engenders; that of one becoming calm and more sober. I mean, the Alcoholics Anonymous prayer, derived from Stoic philosophy, is actually mentioned in this thread.
Regarding which, I think that the affect stoic teaching has on one's behavior is accurately, even in ancient times, one of a dispassionate stance, which they called apatheia. I believe that this would be where Aristotelian virtue ethics somewhat distanced itself from stoic teachings or vice versa.
You don't want to care, but not only do you care, you care that you care. You see the problem, right? You can't want to not care, else you care about not caring and your goal was to not care at all. But alas, you can't embark on the mission to not care unless you care about not caring.
Your problem is that you care. Until you don't care about not caring you can't fix that, but wanting to fix it is part of your problem because it shows you care.
It's a hopeless circle, so you must give up hope to cure your hopelessness because hope is a symptom of caring
Give up hope so that you won't be hopeless? How could that make sense? You must not care that you don't care if you don't want to care. but you can't not care if you care to eliminate your caring.
I don't know. Maybe you're stuck living among the living, forced to face each day with joy or sorrow, dealing with the emotions of being human. Take comfort in the fact that that sounds infinitely better than what you were seeking.
Since you must care, embrace it and realize those pangs of caring are unavoidable. That is, acceptance of your feelings seems more realistic than trying to quash them.
What is the first effect? And youre welcome, even though my intent wasnt as honorable as a white knights.
Aren't you alluding instead to "desire"? I mean, it's written on the wall that everyone desires, right? Aristotle with his virtue ethics actually described how a man should feel his, and about, his emotions, in some sense of saying so.
The first effect is the attitude of dropping one's concern over controlling things out of one's control. If it hasn't been pointed out, that requires quite a lot of processing power on your brain. Eventually, one would be able to emote this attitude as apatheia or a passionless state.
Assuming what I'm saying is true, a person has his or her emotions to deal with, which arise sometimes due to events or are internally hard to regulate.
Talking about the term "regulate", the body has its own way of doing that called, homeostasis. To maintain homeostasis in terms of one's psychology is something everyone wants; but, there's no clear way of doing it. Buddhists think that desire is the root of evil for an individual.
Just my two cents.
The usual way of saying that is: Buddhists believe that ignorance is the cause of suffering.
It's not much different to the practice of CBT strategies which was influenced by Stoicism. It isn't that hard to change mental habits. We see people doing it using CBT in large numbers all around the world.
I encountered RET (the precursor to CBT) when I was a young teen and taught myself some habits that have made life a lot easier. But I was always fairly detached, so it wasn't such a huge leap for me.
What is it that you desire or crave that you can't have and that makes you unhappy? The only thing I ever wanted was a better memory. Luxury seems dull to me, besides the average Westerner already lives in luxury, with running water, a bed, heating, good food.
It can take years of practice to alter ones habitual responses to life's foibles. That said, I'm something of a stoic myself. Heuehuehu.
Indifference doesn't seem to me apt. Acceptance seems more reasonable. Indifference still amounts to some form of ignorance in the face of most challenges. Dispassionately attacked the problem seems a bit more apt, and I can't rightly call that indifference. My habits are mainly around creating psychological buffer zones. Nought else seems apt for this task.
To some extent, yes: Aristotle thought that we should not just eradicate the passions but, rather, cultivate them towards what is good. That isn't a real thing in Stoicism.
Stoicism wasn't something that required effort. Stoicism, to me at least, was just the natural state of somebody's mind when they have lived a life of hardship. It isn't that they tried to restrict their emotions, it is just that they have seen worse.
There is, indeed, a big difference between the ancient times and today when it comes to the bombardment of our life with social media. So, you try to cope using the means that are fitting for today.
For example, there is no more "vanishing" to a remote, uninhabited island (unless it's a tv show). Even if you isolate yourself, if you have a computer, a phone, or tv, then you're bombarded.
The key is mind over matter. A lot of what you see online are fake. Misinformation. Exaggeration.
Back then, stoicism was mostly a matter of the upper class. Being part of the upper class is a whole other category of existing, with quite different challenges and goals in life in comparison to being lower class.
Ancient societies were systemically classist and openly so. While nowadays, we live in socioeconomic systems of merely nominally equity and equality before the law and state. This brings along a lot of problems that people, especially upper class people, simply didn't have, while lower class people are left to the mercy of them.
As far as I can reconstruct, the ancient Stoics actually had enormous pride. It seems to me they were haughty and contemptuous. These are personal characteristics that make life a lot easier, especially when in combination with at least a solid socio-economic status.
In summary, if nowadays, you wouldn't take life advice from an upper class person, chances are you shouldn't take it from the Stoics either. Because it simply won't be applicable in your life.
I don't think this is a relevant difference at all. What is different is that the range of socially acceptable means of responding to this "bombardment" is dismally small. People aren't supposed to spit at others, throw shoes at them, not even call them names. (Unless they are rich and powerrful, of course.)
At the same time, the level of political discourse, as well ad general interpersonal discourse, is dismally low and shallow.
True.