The Stoic philosophy thread

[Septentrionalis]

I checked past threads a few years back and could not find anything about Stoicism although it was probably the most influential school of moral philosophy throughout the classical antiquity and remains influential today, with many adherents in its modern forms and in how it has shaped both religious and secular thinking over the centuries.

Here you can identify as a practitioner of Stoic thought or just individual aspects of it, present your ideas and opinions, ask questions from practicing Stoics, or present materials and literature of interest to Stoicism. We can discuss moral dilemmas if we specifically want to do so within the framework of Stoicism. In general cases of seeking guidance from our peers, we should take it up in the The Personal Help and Advice section.

I am not a moderator and cannot make rules, but I wish that any discussion would take place in the Stoic spirit of rational thought and compassion. Let us embrace any disagreement as an opportunity to learn from others and keep in mind that Stoic philosophy is not a religion. We are all potentially able to formulate new ideas from a Stoic point of view just the same as our ancient predecessors did. Most importantly, let us try to avoid unhelpful flaming about already known divisions within modern Stoic thought, such as theism and atheism.

While humility is not a central concept in Stoic literature, it is most likely because it has always been taken as granted by serious philosophers. Humility in the face of the complexity of our universe and our lives may not be a specific virtue in Stoic thought, but in practice it is hard to understand how any serious pursuit of improving ones person and moral integrity could take place in the absence of humility. So let us not be know-it-alls, because none of us actually know it all.

[Septentrionalis]

To start the discussion, I have practiced Stoicism for several years. It seems like a very short time, but I feel that no other intellectual pursuit has been equally beneficial to me.

Before learning Stoic philosophy and, most importantly, having put it to practical use in my life, I have been a worse person. I have been considerably more short-tempered, concerned about my precious self, struggling with existential fears, more judgmental towards others, and generally more selfish and petty. Eager to pass blame to others, basking in a vain sense of self-importance when receiving praise from others and getting upset when no praise is given. Often making a virtue out of necessity. And so on.

Of course, all of those negative qualities still describe me. But it gives great joy to be better able to question oneself when the ape brain tells us to get upset over something or to make bad things worse by some kind of egotistic surge of negative emotions or display of negative behaviors and attitudes. "Wait a minute, is this my rational mind at work or have I once again allowed it to be clouded by my primal instincts? Could there be a more productive way out this situation?".

[basics]

Septentrionalis,

With a name like that one would need to be extremely unemotional. That said, may I suggest that for anyone who has suffered grief has to be pretty cold not to show any emotions. Being a parent is one of the most emotional experiences that anyone can go through for no matter what ages your offspring become they are still your children and worry about them and theirs never stops. And that is only a part of life if one is living it to the full. Men don't have ape brains, rather the brains that God gave them alongside a conscience that one cannot escape from nor conquer.

[Flinn]

First things first

Or discuss moral dilemmas and seek guidance from your peers in times of difficult decisions.

There's a forum dedicated to this kind of discussion here at TWC, The Personal Help and Advice one, aka PH&A; similar threads are better directed there, since the EEM is specifically meant for discussing philosophies, rather than their application on personal or in general on practical issues.

Said the above, I consider myself to be a practitioner of Stoicism, in the form of it's most modern sibling, the Dudeism. I'm not going to venture into describing exactly what Dudeism is, but in order to get a glimpse of it and it's fundamental elements, you can have a look at this guide I wrote some years ago. Also, there's an article I've written for the Helios publication that should be published not that far in the future, and that offers an interesting peer on the connections between one of the most famous Stoic and modern Dudeism.. whenever it will go live, I'll link it here

Backing to the matter at hand, my personal opinion is that the "concept" of Stoicism is so wide and has so many ramifications and pushes itself to such high levels, that sometimes one can even compare it with the very idea of holiness (in a very general sense, not just strictly related to Christianity, but to the concept of "holy" that is across-the-board for many religions and philosophies). In particular, when looking into the ascetic figure of the true Stoic, resemblances with Buddhism and the idea of "enlightenment" are pretty evident; as a matter of fact, they have been compared very often, both probably being just but a different cultural and historical interpretation of the fundamental values that regulate a healthy and happy life.

What makes Stoicism great is that despite being a very deep philosophy, its practical application is very straight: as a matter of fact, since the Stoicism is centered on the individual as both the source of its own demise or salvation, applying it to everyday's life is somewhat easy, I mean, what's more practical that dealing with yourself? If you are good at that, you can improve the quality of your life in a very efficient way. I've written much on the argument in my CMS blogs, so since I hate to repeat myself, I'm gonna quote myself

Happiness is a mental state, mark my words.

No one else other than you can gift you with happiness.. no other person, no event, no property, all these elements are just accessories.. you can think that winning the lottery will make you happy, and it certainly will, for the next few moments.. you can think that catching that girl will make you happy, and it will certainly will until your Ego is satisfied... you can think that becoming the King of the World will make you happy.. the true happiness is somewhere else, it's inside us.. and it's a very simple thing, that I call "recognition" (I'm not totally sure this term defines exactly what I mean, but still..)

Recognition of what life actually is, of it's fundamental elements (basically, acceptance of death, as I also hinted in the previous post of this blog).. of the fact that we are alone, no matter how hard we believe that we are not.. of the fact that there are Powers (call them God, Karma, Luck, Fate, whatever) that influences our lives out of our own will.. of the fact that we are meaningless in a universe composed by infinite elements and possibilities.

Simplicity is the key, you simply have to want to be happy, to be so.. you simply have to accept the truth you arrive to via the recognition, in order to be happy... stop bothering about your place in the great scheme, stop bothering about how you could be better, how you "should have behaved", or how you could change the people or the world.. just be yourself, do the things without a second goal, give all that you can and forget about it, love without the need of being loved in return, forgive and forget, keep looking forward and always be optimistic..

Remind my words: you won't bring anything with you in the grave.. no success, no failure, no problems, no money, no love, no hate, not even the remembrance.. nothing.. so just stop bothering and be happy, you'll find it surprisingly easy if you'll only try to.

There would be more to share, about fear, death, love and such.. but the quote above is pretty much a good summary of my Stoic/Dudeist view of life.

[Septentrionalis]

With a name like that one would need to be extremely unemotional.

Thank you for your message, basics. I think you have got the naming logic the wrong way around, which is understandable to an English speaker. The Stoic philosophy got its name from a stoa, or a terrace or porch of sorts outside of a public building, where the early Stoics congregated in Athens. Because Stoics try to learn resilience in times of hardship and strict control of their negative emotions (among many other things), the name was later corrupted in some modern languages to mean lack of emotion or even callousness. That is a very unfortunate use of the word and I would personally advise against it.

That said, may I suggest that for anyone who has suffered grief has to be pretty cold not to show any emotions. Being a parent is one of the most emotional experiences that anyone can go through for no matter what ages your offspring become they are still your children and worry about them and theirs never stops. And that is only a part of life if one is living it to the full.

From a Stoic point of view, being happy for your children or marriage or friends is absolutely welcome. However, it is true that one Stoic practice is to acknowledge that you may lose even your children and that there is no virtue in suffering excessively if you can avoid it. One saying is that when we have children, we should accept that we are giving temporary life to mortal beings. We cannot fully prevent them from dying, and we should not entertain any irrational hopes about anyone's immortality. Instead, we should focus on making the lives of others around us better and appreciate their company while we can.

If you have to endure such a horrible loss, no Stoic worth the name is going to ridicule you for your suffering or pretend to be better than you. But we would hope that instead of letting it ruin your life, you should learn to accept the realities of this creation and perhaps make yourself feel better by helping children still alive and in need.

Men don't have ape brains, rather the brains that God gave them alongside a conscience that one cannot escape from nor conquer.

The human brain is what it is regardless of your or my opinion on its provenance, and it is known to serve us very badly in some circumstances. Both Christian and Stoic practices can make us avoid those incidents and many in fact do both. There are a lot of devout Christian followers of the Stoic principles, as the two are in no conflict with each other. The word conscience is not much used in Stoic philosophy because things are evaluated through a complex notion of virtue, but I would dare say that the end result is the same. I would go as far as to say that in most cases an individual's behavior that displays good Christian conscience is indistinguishable from behavior that displays good (modern) Stoic virtue.

[Septentrionalis]

There's a forum dedicated to this kind of discussion here at TWC, The Personal Help and Advice one, aka PH&A; similar threads are better directed there, since the EEM is specifically meant for discussing philosophies, rather than their application on personal or in general on practical issues.

I am not surprised that you picked up on that. I was aware of the help section, and I was thinking of writing the text so that it specifies moral dilemmas when they are specifically viewed in terms of Stoic thought. I forgot when I finally got around to writing. I am editing the opening post next. If you still think that the whole part should be deleted, just drop me a line and I will do so.

Said the above, I consider myself to be a practitioner of Stoicism, in the form of it's most modern sibling, the Dudeism. I'm not going to venture into describing exactly what Dudeism is, but in order to get a glimpse of it and it's fundamental elements, you can have a look at this guide I wrote some years ago.

That is very nice to hear! I am going to get myself acquainted with your writings and ideas and I appreciate you sharing them here.

The way you compare religious ideas of holiness and independently established ideas of values and what constitutes happy life is right to the point. Stoicism is a conscious effort of using reason and good will to figure those things out. It thus diverges at least on the surface from some religions that are based on divine revelation delivered through human vessels, if you will. However, I am not surprised at all that they on many occasions come to the same conclusions, because we all have the same faculty of reason and at least some common ground in determining how we would like live with our fellow men. It is evident though that a culture can evolve into a worse direction if primal and violent behaviors are allowed to become the norm and to be reinforced.

Your writing that you quote rings very familiar to me and is in line with general Stoic thought. I like the way you have put them in your own Dudeish words, though. One of the best things I have personally achieved is that I no longer fear death, or that I have the acceptance of it as you put it. And yes, many of us have what satisfies our needs but I doubt that anyone can ever have enough to satisfy their greed and an over-bloated ego. The key is to let go of the ego and the greed.

The only little thing that caught my doubt is the part about bothering about how you could be better. Maybe we actually agree there as well but have a different way of expressing ourselves. My understanding is that we should not dwell in self-accusations or pine over our shortcomings, but we should try to become better in terms of virtue. Accept that we are imperfect and sometimes say or do hurtful things, but then try to improve. Admit to others that we were wrong and take joy in the possibility of avoiding mistakes tomorrow that we made today. Virtues are acquired, and we should continue to acquire them while understanding that it is okay to fail.

There would be more to share, about fear, death, love and such.. but the quote above is pretty much a good summary of my Stoic/Dudeist view of life.

I am not expecting anyone to carefully analyze their entire life's worth of philosophical thought into one forum post. There may be time yet to share some more ideas.

[conon394]

Septentrionalis,

With a name like that one would need to be extremely unemotional. That said, may I suggest that for anyone who has suffered grief has to be pretty cold not to show any emotions. Being a parent is one of the most emotional experiences that anyone can go through for no matter what ages your offspring become they are still your children and worry about them and theirs never stops. And that is only a part of life if one is living it to the full. Men don't have ape brains, rather the brains that God gave them alongside a conscience that one cannot escape from nor conquer.

I do believe you are confusing the laconic nature of the Spartan mirage for Stoicism. Stoicism as practiced by say Seneca or Marcus Aurelius certainly did not eschew grief or displays of grief. Wallowing in it is another thing. Just as you would not reject joy at achievement or some other happy event. A stoic would certainly having scored the winning goal/point/maneuver in X game (whatever you choose to to insert) would run and celebrate with teammates in joy. But would I think frown deeply on mocking displays of arrogance or taunting to those who just lost.

[basics]

conon394,

How does one wallow in grief? To my mind grief is a heartfelt thing associated to someone or something lost to that heart. For example I still miss my father why? Because as I grew up he doted on me and the older I got the more I doted on him. I suppose one could call him a stoic for the only time he ever raised a hand to me was when he punched me straight on the face to stop me trying to get at my older brother when both of us were flinging punches at each other. He did what he had to to calm me down and for sure it certainly did. Vivid to me as well was the day I got my learner's licence and persuaded him to let me drive the works van from Paisley to Glasgow. He had never seen me behind the wheel, didn't know what to expect and so reluctantly he let me do it. All the way home he must have been on tenterhooks but I did it without any clash of gears, any frightening incidents yet he never showed any emotion during that journey. When we got home all he did was tell my mother that this bold boy had driven them home. So as for my feelings about him I can't see them ever changing.

[Septentrionalis]

Just as you would not reject joy at achievement or some other happy event. A stoic would certainly having scored the winning goal/point/maneuver in X game (whatever you choose to to insert) would run and celebrate with teammates in joy. But would I think frown deeply on mocking displays of arrogance or taunting to those who just lost.

That is an excellent example of the ideals that Stoics try to live by. When reason and a trained mind keep negative and destructive emotions in check, one can concentrate on wholesome and constructive thoughts and enjoy your life much more.

As a side note, some Stoics have had a very negative attitude towards sports and physical exercise. Including that lazy old lovable Seneca. I have not paid much attention that; I have just assumed that the kind of people who hate jocks and physical discomfort will always be around . I think it is a question of personality which individuals can appreciate the positive feelings of camaraderie and competition in sport. Or recognize how subjecting one to the physical discomfort of exercise can build character and improve mood.

That said, in classical antiquity witnessing a bloodthirsty crowd cheering on as slaves and convicts butcher each other mercilessly with real weapons does not give a very positive outlook on sports and sports fans.

[Septentrionalis]

How does one wallow in grief? To my mind grief is a heartfelt thing associated to someone or something lost to that heart.

I am not Conon, but this is an interesting question and I would like to formulate an answer. We could define the negative feeling of grief as something that is claiming the lives of more than just the person who actually died. If you are hurting, cannot enjoy your life, cannot accept what has happened or cannot concentrate on your work, then you are wallowing in grief. In Stoic terms, you are letting irrational negative emotions rule you for too long and you need to reason your way out of that dark place.

The ideal is that you can a have warm feeling of longing for that person and that thinking of that person makes you smile and not cry miserably. Laugh about the jokes that you used to make together and feel happy that you have had the privilege of knowing that person. You can reminisce their positive qualities and try to learn from them yourself. And find assurance in that they are not suffereing anymore. If you have a tear or two flowing when you remember them, I would say that is okay as long as that memory is not preventing you from living to the fullest and having a rational control over your thoughts and actions.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Wallowing in grief is what in common belief is creating a ghost after the death of a person.

So don't being able to let things go is a negative characteristic.

[Septentrionalis]

Wallowing in grief is what in common belief is creating a ghost after the death of a person.

So don't being able to let things go is a negative characteristic.

Thank you Morticia! I did not know how ghosts are made, actually. One thing we could do is tell our loved ones that we do not want them to be miserable after our deaths but enjoy life. If a person is grieving, it might help them to think that the deceased ones probably would want them to stop and move on with their lives too. They would want the best for us, would they not?

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Griefing is not per se a bad thing as its a emotional cleaning, but too much and too long is a problem, as it can be the way into a deep depression.

[basics]

Well, just think of a mother who has just lost a child, does she ever get over it? No she never does but she learns to live with it as best she can. What do men really know about that? Perhaps if men actually gave birth as women do they might see things a lot differently but as that is not going to happen it's OK to deride the levels of grief a mother may have for a lost child. Each one of us handles grief in the best way we can and as one who lived through the last War each time I watch the Remembrance Day Parade I can still see the grief in many faces of the survivors even all these years later. The emotions spring to the surface as memories click in showing they may have bottled it up yet never lost it. These men were real heroes not like those who have never experienced real grief yet pontificate how we should handle something they have not experienced. To me grief and love are cousins in the same conscience that God gave us when He created us.

[Septentrionalis]

Griefing is not per se a bad thing as its a emotional cleaning, but too much and too long is a problem, as it can be the way into a deep depression.

I agree and so do Stoics from classical antiquity as well. Although for instance Seneca in his Epistulae Morales (Moral Letters) suggested that one should try to control the intensity of ones display of grief and get it done as quickly as possible. I don't have the source at hand but I remember that he talked about a mere day of weeping as his recommendation.

Stoics have been quite adamant that many of our behaviors are not as wholesome as we would like to see them as. At some point a person should honestly look into their heart and ask themselves if their prolonged grieving is self pity, which is a harmful and in some ways even an immoral thing for the survivor. Or a defensive behavior of assuming the role of a victim so that we would not have to bear the burden of toughening up and concentrating on our civic duties that do not end with the loss of someone close to us.

One example of such harsh but real civic duties would be to continue caring for your children if your spouse is taken away all too early. Another example is people who work for you and whose families' livelihood depends on you taking good care of your business.

Well, just think of a mother who has just lost a child, does she ever get over it? No she never does but she learns to live with it as best she can. What do men really know about that? Perhaps if men actually gave birth as women do they might see things a lot differently but as that is not going to happen it's OK to deride the levels of grief a mother may have for a lost child.

I hope no one is deriding anything now. I guess we all hear quite often the opinion that those who do not understand from personal experience the depth of someone's suffering, should not comment on such matters at all. I see great compassion in that position, because it is an expression of acknowledging another human being's suffering.

It just sounds a little misguided and irrational from a practical perspective, because we should come up with ways to prepare ourselves for dealing with loss and to be able to help those who already are in dire emotional situations. We don't expect a therapist to have to be someone with equal or worse experiences as the patient. Or a doctor. Or a philosopher, in my opinion.

[basics]

To show even a little sympathy to someone in deep grief is a natural thing to do unless one really is a cold hearted being. To even suggest a day is enough is at best a rather foolish thing to say, why? Because one cannot put a time on the feelings that others have for a lost one. No matter how one prepares for a death it is impossible to say how one will react once it happens especially when memories kick in. There never has been nor ever will be a family which has not suffered grief in some way so when an outsider suggests a time limit on that grief it's just a stupid notion altogether. But then, the way this world is going it wouldn't surprise me to see something like it put into law.

[Flinn]

As promised, here is the link that for the recently published Helios article https://www.twcenter.net/forums/cont...udeist-emperor!

I guess one cannot really talk about Stoicism, without taking Marcus Aurelius in consideration

ps. no need to update the OP about the PH&A, no worries

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

That article is great and Marcus Aurelius was a great man, but i prefer Epicureanism.

Searching the modest pleasures in life in order to attain a state of tranquillity, freedom from fear ("ataraxia") and absence from bodily pain ("aponia") and living hiddn outside the public life seems more preferrable to me.

https://www.philosophybasics.com/bra...cureanism.html

[Septentrionalis]

As promised, here is the link that for the recently published Helios article https://www.twcenter.net/forums/cont...udeist-emperor!

Thank you for the link! I checked the article out already in the morning before starting to work, and I was a bit confused. Why is it posted by Alwyn but looks as if it was written by you? I have to get to a meeting now so I cannot comment on the substance (or Morticia's unfortunate choice of philosophy ) until in the evening.

[Flinn]

Thank you for the link! I checked the article out already in the morning before starting to work, and I was a bit confused. Why is it posted by Alwyn but looks as if it was written by you? I have to get to a meeting now so I cannot comment on the substance (or Morticia's unfortunate choice of philosophy ) until in the evening.

I'll VM you about this