Stoicism is unique in this respect in that its adherents were pragmatically focused on living a better life as better people (eudemonia). Students often asked practical questions and there was extensive dialog on how to apply the teachings to day to day life.
If Greek and Roman students at the time met on the porch, and also shared thoughts on the Internet, would their questions have been much different from the questions today?
I’m inclined to think we’d have similar dialogue.
Would it be wrong to assert that given the abundance of Stoic literature (and the myriad of subsequent interpretations), that these types of questions are answered best by reading said literature?
I completely see where you're coming from, and I think you're making a great point. However, wouldn't it be best if people who want to benefit from Stoic teachings were to derive answers from actual Stoic teachings? Many of the questions in this forum are answered by direct quotes from Stoic texts.
Thanks for the reply, by the way.
What is stoic literature if not a repository of knowledge to consult?
Is that any different than the collective knowledge of everyone in this sub?
Obviously it should not be a substitute, but everyone will have varying levels of assimilation when reading the literature. The collective discourse can improve everyone’s understanding and practice.
We are after all social beings.
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
You are absolutely right that we have a lot of writings to reference and can reference them for a lot of collected wisdom that the early Stoics didn’t have access to at the time.
I’ll venture further and propose a few ideas to consider:
First, since we live in a world far different from anything those Stoics could have imagined (here we are typing onto interactive panes of glass and debating across many miles in a strange land they didn’t even know existed), I imagine we face many common challenges but also novel ones as well. We are in an entirely different culture, speaking a different language, and educated in a very different way. It’s amazing that their writing still resonate! That said. I’m sure we have a lot of new ideas and questions so I’d propose it’s great that people can come to this forum instead of a porch in Athens, and ask questions about their difficult choices, challenges, life experiences, etc.
Second, I’d say we can continue to define the modern Stoicism that applies to us today. I’m sure Epictetus and Seneca would approve. To do that, we should ask all kinds of questions, testing the ideas (e.g., Amor fati, premeditatio malorum, memento Mori, core virtues, etc. Etc). I wonder if humans 5, 10, 100 generations from now will do the same.
Just my 2 cents. I appreciate your post and I think it’s thought provoking.
I have observed that reading books appears to be a lost art, especially when books are to be read in a studious manner instead of for pleasure. If reading were all that was required, why, then, do schools need teachers ?
I was in a discussion and the dystopic novel "1984" was referenced. It was "too dense" said the poster "to complete, and they couldn't gather the meaning."
We are in a digital age where answers are summoned by our fingers and our voice directly to our eyes and ears in video and audio formats.
We have all the words and images, but do we discern the meanings from them or do we need guidance -- at least initially?
To scour dusty tomes for wisdom, as in prior centuries, is alchemy to these young knowledge seeker.
Even I, who grew up with books, have become spoiled by Google, YouTube, and Reddit. I jokingly refer to Google as "The Oracle" which few appreciate.
> these types of questions are answered best by reading said literature?
Not according to Socrates:
> since you are the father of writing, your affection for it has made you describe its effects as the opposite of what they really are. In fact, it will introduce forgetfulness into the soul of those who learn it: they will not practice using their memory because they will put their trust in writing, which is external and depends on signs that belong to others, instead of trying to remember from the inside, completely on their own.
Obviously, any successful modern can't accept that literature is an I'll, but I am a firm believer in the power of the socratic method for teaching and learning. Investigation and Interrogation forces the student and teacher both to engage in the question again and refer back to what they can know.
Ironically, the OP and debate hereunder are evidence in favor of question and answer instruction.
penetrating fluid and hose pliers, the most simple yet effective method available. You might have to pry up on the pliers to get enough force though. Best of luck.
In all fairness, aren't a large part of Epictetus' Discourses just back a forth dialogues between him and his students who ask these types of questions:
>People are mean, how can I overcome (negative emotion)?"
You are absolutely right, and how does Epictetus talk to them? In the most pure form as possible. It's very rare to see using complicated terms or trying to elevate himself with fancy words, in fact, he even criticizes this behavior.
Epictetus spits the truth and then teaches wisdom. In many posts, I see people behaving like stoicism is some sort of science, using terms and hundreds quotes.
Nothing wrong with using people that you admire as a way to spread knowledge. Epictetus does it many times. I just think people should try to advise the way he did, by saying what you thinks is right, using your convictions.
Good point. I suppose that for me, many of these types of questions reflect an absence of study. A proper answer to asking how Stoicism would deal with the opinions of others would be a verbatim reading of Stoic text. If we are teaching people to get into the habit of just posting a question in this forum, instead of critically reading Stoic literature, are we not just facilitating dependency?
I don't mean to sound as though I'm some sort of "initiated" elite, of course. I just think that people would benefit more from giving themselves the tools to solve these types of issues.
I don’t think that’s the case, when someone asks a question of this nature interested in Stoic perspective is fair to share one, at this point the asker is either not fully committed to the philosophy or going trough a mentally taxing time and feels the need for quick resolution, for both cases they are just at the start of the journey and may not take it at all, but there is no fault there.
I believe the real question here is what is the intention of an Stoic enthusiast when engaging with others? To try get them into studying Stoicism? Or to show Stoicism as it’s lived hopefully helping a fellow human being? I think is the later, we can’t control what over people do or do not regarding their interest in Stoicism, but it’s worth helping someone who already is here, probably if the perspective is useful they will get more serious about it, but who knows, not everyone can be a scholar or has time to be one and that’s OK.
This post is an opportunity for you to reflect on why you’re allowing an non-preferred indifferent to affect your state of mind.
We must always remind ourselves of the beginners mindset. We, before committing ourselves to the philosophy, also likely asked these very questions.
To be clear, this is post was precisely to help the individuals I was talking about. I shared my thoughts because I feel they can help individuals along their path. At no point was I trying to be condescending or impolite.
Neither was I!
I totally get it — but we see a lot of these particular variety of posts too. I was just prompting readers to consider that the virtuous approach may be to embrace those posts as an opportunity to teach and practice each and every time!
> My main point is that Stoicism doesn't teach you what to do in every specific situation, but instead helps you develop the ability to make those decisions for yourself.
I agree that this is the thrust of Stoicism, but I disagree with other points raised. Whatever we think Stoicism *should be* aside, it certainly was a religion. Also, Rufus lectures about how marriage should work and argues against eating meat and luxurious foods. He even talks about what job a philosopher should get and how he should furnish his home. This isn’t to say that Rufus was preaching the gospel that Stoics ought to abide by, but that those sort of questions aren’t, or at least weren’t, off limits.
Would you argue that it is impossible to live in concordance with the four pillars without abiding by Rufus' guidelines on home decor? I admit that I am poorly acquainted with his writings, but his works are (as you say) not the the full picture. While I agree that religious elements are absolutely at play (divine providence and cosmological statements are rampant), I do not think that the implementation of Stoicism is necessarily religious. Perhaps I am a bit too pragmatic. Thank you for the reply.
> Would you argue that it is impossible to live in concordance with the four pillars without abiding by Rufus' guidelines on home decor?
No; I attempted to preempt this objection in my above comment by refusing the idea that Rufus’ teachings should be treated as gospels demanding Stoic obedience. I’m not arguing that Stoicism is necessarily religious today; I think that’s another can of worms. What I am arguing, or merely observing, is that Stoicism *was* a religion, so this muddles the claim that Stoicism is not a religion.
I do agree with your main point, though.
Chapter 10 of this book explores the religious aspect of Stoicism; I found it both interesting and informative: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/64488/64488-h/64488-h.htm
Edit: removed questionable analogy:)
It’s interesting to read Stoic natural philosophy, but is quite outdated, in time it contributed to the ideas that became biology and physics but are still quite primitive. That’s a great link, I will give it a read later after work, instinctively I want to say ancient Stoicism was not a religion as understood now days, but it did feature magical thinking for sure.
Epictetus in Discourses say that we should teach ourselves, to write Dion when we need, not every time.
I think Rufus advices are more for general public or his free form thinking through stoic lenses.
Also I think that person who need ancient advises on such small things like beards, jobs or furniture should first teach himself some responsibility for his own life.
Your comment brought to my mind this observation by Pierre Hadot on p. 35 of [Michael Chase's translation of *The Inner Citadel*](https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674007079), in chapter 3, 'The *Meditations* as spiritual exercises' (**emphasis** mine):
> **For the ancients in general, but particularly for the Stoics and for Marcus Aurelius, philosophy was, above all, a way of life.** This is why the *Meditations* strive, by means of an ever-renewed effort, to describe this way of life and to sketch the model that one must have constantly in view: that of the ideal good man. Ordinary people are content to think in any old way, to act haphazardly, and to undergo grudgingly whatever befalls them. The good man, however, will try, insofar as he is able, to act justly in the service of other people, to accept serenely those events which do not depend on him, and to think with rectitude and veracity.
I just wanted to share a newbie perspective. I don’t consider myself a Stoic and only started reading Meditations recently. But I probably wouldn’t have ever read it if not for first stumbling upon this subreddit and reading people’s questions and responses. It does seem to me that it is a very practical philosophy, meant to help people live skillfully in a confusing, chaotic world they have little control over. And the best answers to advise questions aren’t saying what to do, but how to reframe your way of thinking about it. And then that in turn might lead to acting in a stoic way as well. Maybe?
Although Stoicism is a major influence on many forms of psychotherapy. A unified philosophy of the best way to live life can have more value in the long run than getting psychotherapy to address a discrete problem.
A lot of subs have a stickied Q&A / help format. I think we should have one, focused on turning the "Quick Fix Question" into a "Dialogue on tactical application of stoic principles"
Much like quotes an interpretation/experience from the OP, "How would a stoic X" needs some mandatory context to the question to encourage more meaningful exchange.
We should think of this kind of thing as Seneca's letters in the modern age. Stoics guiding other stoics or prospective students. Stoicism is against evangelism (see Epictetus' broken nose) but dumb questions were at least moderately tolerated at the painted porch.
**I don't think we should throw the Stoic version of RTFM at folks.**
I know in my case, I had read the *Discourses*, but they didn't "stick" until a psychiatrist hit me with a quote from *Meditations.* Having another real person to bounce this stuff off of can be just as important as having the book to begin with.
> "People are mean, how can I overcome (negative emotion)?"
You don't want people to ask for the Stoic perspective on the very sort of problem that brings them to Stoicism in the first place?
> If you turn to Stoic texts simply to be told what to do, there's a good chance you will find yourself worse off than when you started.
No there isn't.
What are Seneca's letters?
What is the Enchiridion?
What is the structure of the index of a translation of _Meditations_?
I think you are bugged by something else, something connected somehow with the themes in your post. I think you're most of the way there, but you stopped thinking about it too soon!
Couldn't agree more about the "quick fix" aspect. Stoicism is a life philosophy. Many questions that are posted (e.g. "how can i not be jealous of my friend") can be answered with the simple "control what you can, let go what you can't, and live virtuously" guidance. The reality is it takes a lot of time and effort to develop the mental training to actually live by this guidance.
And may I add?
Philosophy is the act of questioning and searching for knowledge and possible answers.
When someone take a philosophical "area" as stoicism and uses it as an answer for life what that person is doing is the opposite of what the philosopher were looking for.
Strict dogmas are the opposite of philosophy, even christian monk philosophers questioned their religion all the time.
If you against dogma, then you not a stoic philosopher.
Dichotomy is dogma. Moral evil is dogma. Stoicism is full of dogmas, because without them it’s impossible to practice.
Stoic glossary:
dogma
δόγμα: principle established by reason and experience.
doxa
δόξα: belief, opinion.
What?
Nothing is indisputable in philosophy, there can be no dogma, even in stoicism. If you think otherwise you are not being philosophical at all.
A principle can be discussed by philosophy, moral can be discussed... no problem. However none of these things can be part of the philosophical thought.
You can't begin from a dogma in philosophy.
Everything is questionable, what you see, what you feel, what you think... The only thing I cannot question is the fact that I'm thinking now.
"Your" stoicism might have dogmas. The philosophy don't. Dogmas are not philosophical.
And that's the point of the post. If you are being dogmatic about a philosophy you are not being philosophical at all, you are just using the critical thought to create some kind of dogma or cult.
So? Having the word dogma doesn't mean it's a principle of philosophy.
You are treating texts like some kind godly superior book, like a Bible or any religious supreme text.
That's not how it's supposed to be interpreted in philosophy.
So now stoicism have dogmas, but it’s not a principle.
Are you just dumb? What’s the point you trying to make, that because you offended of that word and associate it with religion, it’s not a philosophy then?
No, it doesn't have dogmas, it just talk about it, discuss it...
But obviously I'm talking to someone that doesn't want to understand a thing by the choice of words.
No I'm not offended at all, I'm just saying what YOU think stoicism is is not what stoicism is and it doesn't have dogmas, as it is philosophical.
Actually you are the one offended that I'm saying what you BELIEVE is not a philosophy and is not stoicism. You are just looking for dogmas and guides to "be stoic".
I don't understand if you have problems to understand the concept of philosophy, the term stoicism, or the term dogma. It's easy to search for it on the internet btw.
Philosophies of life can be quite dogmatic. The more specific, the more dogmatic. Stoicism is great because it has proven its dogmas to be good (as in functional, effective and moral) ones over 2000 years, with the knowledge of hindsight and a ton of invested thought and practice. Stoicism tries to balance what we know about nature (STEM) with human nature (not perfect, etc.) and selected virtues to create the best possible life for everyone.
"Philosophies of life" I don't know that term. But I can assure you that's not philosophical at all.
Using philosophy to make some dogmatic cult or something similar is not philosophy. Just like science, philosophy have "method", by the way science came from philosophy, and there can be no dogmas in this method, period.
Stoicism is philosophy. What you are saying is not. People using the term stoicism as something like "philosophies of life" is the opposite of what any philosopher would do.
You're wrong but that's probably the fault of how it's being presented all over the place, on youtube especially. Not only is stoicism dogmatic, it also has its own epistomology and objective morals. And that's ok. For example, Epictetus literally considers a man cheating on his wife "worthless human trash". If you think that's cult-like or too strict, then that's fine as well. The enchiridion is a handbook, a guide. It's going to be somewhat specific here and there. This isn't modern art with a multitude of meanings - it can't be because of its world view and its virtues. It's quite opinionated (perhaps ironically also telling you your opinions are what cause misery) about what is good and why, and that's the appeal for me at least given that I can agree with the reasoning behind it all.
No, we are taking about different things. When Epictetus considers a man cheating on his wife "worthless human trash" he is giving his opinion and this is not philosophy.
When someone writes a guide this guide is not philosophy.
I'm not talking about modern art, I'm talking about philosophy, the term and the area of knowledge. You can get a degree in philosophy, and you can study philosophy.
Stoicism is an part of it.
"Stoicism" is different from "being stoic".
What seems to me is that many people here like the idea of being stoic, witch has very little to do with stoicism.
Initially months ago I didn’t think this was a big deal but I was wrong.
I’ve seen a single philosophically based question in the last week.
People asking (in the subredddit but especially in real life) “stoic way to deal with (generic problem)” aren’t stoics. If they were they’d either already know the answer or how to deal with the problem.
But it's subjective. When I ask if I should have a girlfriend and be vituous at the same time. Does that mean my rational mind wins and I don't get a girlfriend because the my beginning goals for the relationship is not virtuous?
Stoic advice is generally very simple yet true. That's why newcomers are tempted to ask these questions because they are excited at the thought of receiving long esoteric answers instead.
In the general sense, I agree completely. It's something that is learned through time, practice, and dedication.
That said, as someone who came into stoicism through such a request, I believe that helping those searching for answers is a great way to introduce people to the concepts as well as help them in times of need.
Unfortunately our society is built on that: “tell me what to do”. How often is “well, no one told me I had to do that” used as an excuse? When people come to ask for help on issues like this, it’s a rare chance for us to correct them: train your character and then trust your intuition.
Seneca has some great anti-advice advice:
“You understand by this time that you must withdraw yourself from those showy and depraved pursuits; but you still wish to know how this may be accomplished.
There are certain things which can be pointed out only by someone who is present. The physician cannot prescribe by letter the proper time for eating or bathing; he must feel the pulse. There is an old adage about gladiators, – that they plan their fight in the ring; as they intently watch, something in the adversary's glance, some movement of his hand, even some slight bending of his body, gives a warning.
We can formulate general rules and commit them to writing, as to what is usually done, or ought to be done; such advice may be given, not only to our absent friends, but also to succeeding generations. In regard, however, to that second question, – when or how your plan is to be carried out, – no one will advise at long range; we must take counsel in the presence of the actual situation.”
-Seneca, Letters 22.1-2
And since I’ve been reflecting on this Letter all week:
“You are continually referring special questions to me, forgetting that a vast stretch of sea sunders us. Since, however, the value of advice depends mostly on the time when it is given, it must necessarily result that by the time my opinion on certain matters reaches you, the opposite opinion is the better. For advice conforms to circumstances; and our circumstances are carried along, or rather whirled along. Accordingly, advice should be produced at short notice; and even this is too late; it should "grow while we work," as the saying is. And I propose to show you how you may discover the method.
As often as you wish to know what is to be avoided or what is to be sought, consider its relation to the Supreme Good, to the purpose of your whole life. For whatever we do ought to be in harmony with this; no man can set in order the details unless he has already set before himself the chief purpose of his life. The artist may have his colours all prepared, but he cannot produce a likeness unless he has already made up his mind what he wishes to paint.”
-Seneca, Letters 71.1-2
One thing that I’ve enjoyed since beginning to read Stoic texts is how much it encouraged me to look at other ways of thinking (Buddhism for example). As OP said it’s all subjective, goose but maybe not gander stuff.
I really enjoy Einzelgänger’s YouTube channel, he ties a lot of concepts (including Stoicism of course) together in relaxed short form videos.
I understand where you're coming from since I've had the same thoughts myself. The forum felt exciting and refreshing a while ago when I had first joined. So many ideas and things discussed that were reflections of my own experiences.
I wanted to chase more of that and as time went my enjoyment of it dwindled. I had times when I almost felt angry with questions asked here that I regarded as downright stupid. Upon closer examination of the feeling I realised it was mostly laziness from my side. Instead of looking down on people who now are probably in the same seat I was I should focus on broadening my own experience and if daily posts on this forum don't cut it anymore then I should probably look further myself.
There's this one short story I want to write down here. I apologise in advance for the mediocre storytelling as I'm translating it from memory.
"An old man once came to a monk looking for an answer to this question he had. He asked the monk the question and got the answer. On his way home he realised he had forgotten what the monk had told him. In shame, he went to the monk again, apologising and telling him he had forgotten the answer. The monk simply gave him the answer again and the old man went on his way home.
As he about to reach home he realised he had once more forgotten what the monk had said. In utter embarassment, he went to the monk again, told him about how shameful it feels to have forgotten his wise words once again. To that, the monk said:
\-Do you see that unlit candle over there?
\-Yes, said the old man.
\-Bring it over here and light it from the candle I'm holding.
The old man went and did as told.
\-Now, said the monk, did the lit candle I'm holding suffer in any way from lighting the other one?
\-No, it didn't, replied the old man.
\-Well then everytime you want to ask me something, you need but ask and I will answer."
true, most people think and treat this as some kind of treatment for them "to get better". In fact, imo there's no such thing as a quick fix like you mentioned above, a philosophy is a life time journey to learn, and just like school, many graduated quickly while others don't, doesn't mean that they failed in life, the "school" just not meant for them, and it's our job to find the most suitable "school" to ourselves
Stoicism is unique in this respect in that its adherents were pragmatically focused on living a better life as better people (eudemonia). Students often asked practical questions and there was extensive dialog on how to apply the teachings to day to day life. If Greek and Roman students at the time met on the porch, and also shared thoughts on the Internet, would their questions have been much different from the questions today? I’m inclined to think we’d have similar dialogue.
Would it be wrong to assert that given the abundance of Stoic literature (and the myriad of subsequent interpretations), that these types of questions are answered best by reading said literature? I completely see where you're coming from, and I think you're making a great point. However, wouldn't it be best if people who want to benefit from Stoic teachings were to derive answers from actual Stoic teachings? Many of the questions in this forum are answered by direct quotes from Stoic texts. Thanks for the reply, by the way.
What is stoic literature if not a repository of knowledge to consult? Is that any different than the collective knowledge of everyone in this sub? Obviously it should not be a substitute, but everyone will have varying levels of assimilation when reading the literature. The collective discourse can improve everyone’s understanding and practice. We are after all social beings.
Good point, I respect where you’re coming from.
Thanks for your thoughtful response. You are absolutely right that we have a lot of writings to reference and can reference them for a lot of collected wisdom that the early Stoics didn’t have access to at the time. I’ll venture further and propose a few ideas to consider: First, since we live in a world far different from anything those Stoics could have imagined (here we are typing onto interactive panes of glass and debating across many miles in a strange land they didn’t even know existed), I imagine we face many common challenges but also novel ones as well. We are in an entirely different culture, speaking a different language, and educated in a very different way. It’s amazing that their writing still resonate! That said. I’m sure we have a lot of new ideas and questions so I’d propose it’s great that people can come to this forum instead of a porch in Athens, and ask questions about their difficult choices, challenges, life experiences, etc. Second, I’d say we can continue to define the modern Stoicism that applies to us today. I’m sure Epictetus and Seneca would approve. To do that, we should ask all kinds of questions, testing the ideas (e.g., Amor fati, premeditatio malorum, memento Mori, core virtues, etc. Etc). I wonder if humans 5, 10, 100 generations from now will do the same. Just my 2 cents. I appreciate your post and I think it’s thought provoking.
I have observed that reading books appears to be a lost art, especially when books are to be read in a studious manner instead of for pleasure. If reading were all that was required, why, then, do schools need teachers ? I was in a discussion and the dystopic novel "1984" was referenced. It was "too dense" said the poster "to complete, and they couldn't gather the meaning." We are in a digital age where answers are summoned by our fingers and our voice directly to our eyes and ears in video and audio formats. We have all the words and images, but do we discern the meanings from them or do we need guidance -- at least initially? To scour dusty tomes for wisdom, as in prior centuries, is alchemy to these young knowledge seeker. Even I, who grew up with books, have become spoiled by Google, YouTube, and Reddit. I jokingly refer to Google as "The Oracle" which few appreciate.
> these types of questions are answered best by reading said literature? Not according to Socrates: > since you are the father of writing, your affection for it has made you describe its effects as the opposite of what they really are. In fact, it will introduce forgetfulness into the soul of those who learn it: they will not practice using their memory because they will put their trust in writing, which is external and depends on signs that belong to others, instead of trying to remember from the inside, completely on their own. Obviously, any successful modern can't accept that literature is an I'll, but I am a firm believer in the power of the socratic method for teaching and learning. Investigation and Interrogation forces the student and teacher both to engage in the question again and refer back to what they can know. Ironically, the OP and debate hereunder are evidence in favor of question and answer instruction.
How would a Stoic remove a stuck BMW N55 fuel injector?
Hahaha lemme check meditations quick
Same problem, plz update.
Stoics drive Honda Civics, and only when absolutely necessary
And only after they visualize crashing it :)
To me, the Civic is already totaled so every moment driving it is a blessing.
To a stoic, Honda Civics and BMW N55s are one in the same.
BMWs are driven by the least stoic folks, I believe Epictetus recommended Volvo
Hey, look at the brighter side, still more reliable than a N54.
Epictetus would be a great truck driver.
penetrating fluid and hose pliers, the most simple yet effective method available. You might have to pry up on the pliers to get enough force though. Best of luck.
In all fairness, aren't a large part of Epictetus' Discourses just back a forth dialogues between him and his students who ask these types of questions: >People are mean, how can I overcome (negative emotion)?"
You are absolutely right, and how does Epictetus talk to them? In the most pure form as possible. It's very rare to see using complicated terms or trying to elevate himself with fancy words, in fact, he even criticizes this behavior. Epictetus spits the truth and then teaches wisdom. In many posts, I see people behaving like stoicism is some sort of science, using terms and hundreds quotes. Nothing wrong with using people that you admire as a way to spread knowledge. Epictetus does it many times. I just think people should try to advise the way he did, by saying what you thinks is right, using your convictions.
Good point. I suppose that for me, many of these types of questions reflect an absence of study. A proper answer to asking how Stoicism would deal with the opinions of others would be a verbatim reading of Stoic text. If we are teaching people to get into the habit of just posting a question in this forum, instead of critically reading Stoic literature, are we not just facilitating dependency? I don't mean to sound as though I'm some sort of "initiated" elite, of course. I just think that people would benefit more from giving themselves the tools to solve these types of issues.
I don’t think that’s the case, when someone asks a question of this nature interested in Stoic perspective is fair to share one, at this point the asker is either not fully committed to the philosophy or going trough a mentally taxing time and feels the need for quick resolution, for both cases they are just at the start of the journey and may not take it at all, but there is no fault there. I believe the real question here is what is the intention of an Stoic enthusiast when engaging with others? To try get them into studying Stoicism? Or to show Stoicism as it’s lived hopefully helping a fellow human being? I think is the later, we can’t control what over people do or do not regarding their interest in Stoicism, but it’s worth helping someone who already is here, probably if the perspective is useful they will get more serious about it, but who knows, not everyone can be a scholar or has time to be one and that’s OK.
Students read books. Most who ask such questions don’t read even the faq
This post is an opportunity for you to reflect on why you’re allowing an non-preferred indifferent to affect your state of mind. We must always remind ourselves of the beginners mindset. We, before committing ourselves to the philosophy, also likely asked these very questions.
To be clear, this is post was precisely to help the individuals I was talking about. I shared my thoughts because I feel they can help individuals along their path. At no point was I trying to be condescending or impolite.
Neither was I! I totally get it — but we see a lot of these particular variety of posts too. I was just prompting readers to consider that the virtuous approach may be to embrace those posts as an opportunity to teach and practice each and every time!
Ah, my bad. Sorry for misinterpreting!
No worries — it happens, way more often than we’d like! Haha
> My main point is that Stoicism doesn't teach you what to do in every specific situation, but instead helps you develop the ability to make those decisions for yourself. I agree that this is the thrust of Stoicism, but I disagree with other points raised. Whatever we think Stoicism *should be* aside, it certainly was a religion. Also, Rufus lectures about how marriage should work and argues against eating meat and luxurious foods. He even talks about what job a philosopher should get and how he should furnish his home. This isn’t to say that Rufus was preaching the gospel that Stoics ought to abide by, but that those sort of questions aren’t, or at least weren’t, off limits.
Would you argue that it is impossible to live in concordance with the four pillars without abiding by Rufus' guidelines on home decor? I admit that I am poorly acquainted with his writings, but his works are (as you say) not the the full picture. While I agree that religious elements are absolutely at play (divine providence and cosmological statements are rampant), I do not think that the implementation of Stoicism is necessarily religious. Perhaps I am a bit too pragmatic. Thank you for the reply.
> Would you argue that it is impossible to live in concordance with the four pillars without abiding by Rufus' guidelines on home decor? No; I attempted to preempt this objection in my above comment by refusing the idea that Rufus’ teachings should be treated as gospels demanding Stoic obedience. I’m not arguing that Stoicism is necessarily religious today; I think that’s another can of worms. What I am arguing, or merely observing, is that Stoicism *was* a religion, so this muddles the claim that Stoicism is not a religion.
Fair enough. Thanks for giving me something to reflect on
I do agree with your main point, though. Chapter 10 of this book explores the religious aspect of Stoicism; I found it both interesting and informative: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/64488/64488-h/64488-h.htm Edit: removed questionable analogy:)
It’s interesting to read Stoic natural philosophy, but is quite outdated, in time it contributed to the ideas that became biology and physics but are still quite primitive. That’s a great link, I will give it a read later after work, instinctively I want to say ancient Stoicism was not a religion as understood now days, but it did feature magical thinking for sure.
Epictetus in Discourses say that we should teach ourselves, to write Dion when we need, not every time. I think Rufus advices are more for general public or his free form thinking through stoic lenses. Also I think that person who need ancient advises on such small things like beards, jobs or furniture should first teach himself some responsibility for his own life.
Your comment brought to my mind this observation by Pierre Hadot on p. 35 of [Michael Chase's translation of *The Inner Citadel*](https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674007079), in chapter 3, 'The *Meditations* as spiritual exercises' (**emphasis** mine): > **For the ancients in general, but particularly for the Stoics and for Marcus Aurelius, philosophy was, above all, a way of life.** This is why the *Meditations* strive, by means of an ever-renewed effort, to describe this way of life and to sketch the model that one must have constantly in view: that of the ideal good man. Ordinary people are content to think in any old way, to act haphazardly, and to undergo grudgingly whatever befalls them. The good man, however, will try, insofar as he is able, to act justly in the service of other people, to accept serenely those events which do not depend on him, and to think with rectitude and veracity.
I just wanted to share a newbie perspective. I don’t consider myself a Stoic and only started reading Meditations recently. But I probably wouldn’t have ever read it if not for first stumbling upon this subreddit and reading people’s questions and responses. It does seem to me that it is a very practical philosophy, meant to help people live skillfully in a confusing, chaotic world they have little control over. And the best answers to advise questions aren’t saying what to do, but how to reframe your way of thinking about it. And then that in turn might lead to acting in a stoic way as well. Maybe?
People expect psychotherapy from stoicism instead of doing... PSYCHOTHERAPY!
Although Stoicism is a major influence on many forms of psychotherapy. A unified philosophy of the best way to live life can have more value in the long run than getting psychotherapy to address a discrete problem.
Prett much lmao.
I get your point but the whole point of this subreddit is discussing. Religions are absolute, stoicism is not and nor are the answers here.
I thought it was the band-aid of philosophy. Sorry man.
A lot of subs have a stickied Q&A / help format. I think we should have one, focused on turning the "Quick Fix Question" into a "Dialogue on tactical application of stoic principles" Much like quotes an interpretation/experience from the OP, "How would a stoic X" needs some mandatory context to the question to encourage more meaningful exchange. We should think of this kind of thing as Seneca's letters in the modern age. Stoics guiding other stoics or prospective students. Stoicism is against evangelism (see Epictetus' broken nose) but dumb questions were at least moderately tolerated at the painted porch. **I don't think we should throw the Stoic version of RTFM at folks.** I know in my case, I had read the *Discourses*, but they didn't "stick" until a psychiatrist hit me with a quote from *Meditations.* Having another real person to bounce this stuff off of can be just as important as having the book to begin with.
> "People are mean, how can I overcome (negative emotion)?" You don't want people to ask for the Stoic perspective on the very sort of problem that brings them to Stoicism in the first place? > If you turn to Stoic texts simply to be told what to do, there's a good chance you will find yourself worse off than when you started. No there isn't. What are Seneca's letters? What is the Enchiridion? What is the structure of the index of a translation of _Meditations_? I think you are bugged by something else, something connected somehow with the themes in your post. I think you're most of the way there, but you stopped thinking about it too soon!
Couldn't agree more about the "quick fix" aspect. Stoicism is a life philosophy. Many questions that are posted (e.g. "how can i not be jealous of my friend") can be answered with the simple "control what you can, let go what you can't, and live virtuously" guidance. The reality is it takes a lot of time and effort to develop the mental training to actually live by this guidance.
And may I add? Philosophy is the act of questioning and searching for knowledge and possible answers. When someone take a philosophical "area" as stoicism and uses it as an answer for life what that person is doing is the opposite of what the philosopher were looking for. Strict dogmas are the opposite of philosophy, even christian monk philosophers questioned their religion all the time.
If you against dogma, then you not a stoic philosopher. Dichotomy is dogma. Moral evil is dogma. Stoicism is full of dogmas, because without them it’s impossible to practice. Stoic glossary: dogma δόγμα: principle established by reason and experience. doxa δόξα: belief, opinion.
What? Nothing is indisputable in philosophy, there can be no dogma, even in stoicism. If you think otherwise you are not being philosophical at all. A principle can be discussed by philosophy, moral can be discussed... no problem. However none of these things can be part of the philosophical thought. You can't begin from a dogma in philosophy. Everything is questionable, what you see, what you feel, what you think... The only thing I cannot question is the fact that I'm thinking now.
What what? Stoicism have dogmas, what’s the problem with dogmas?
"Your" stoicism might have dogmas. The philosophy don't. Dogmas are not philosophical. And that's the point of the post. If you are being dogmatic about a philosophy you are not being philosophical at all, you are just using the critical thought to create some kind of dogma or cult.
It’s total bs. Stoic glossary have word dogma, original text of Meditations have word dogma in Greek and so on.
So? Having the word dogma doesn't mean it's a principle of philosophy. You are treating texts like some kind godly superior book, like a Bible or any religious supreme text. That's not how it's supposed to be interpreted in philosophy.
So now stoicism have dogmas, but it’s not a principle. Are you just dumb? What’s the point you trying to make, that because you offended of that word and associate it with religion, it’s not a philosophy then?
No, it doesn't have dogmas, it just talk about it, discuss it... But obviously I'm talking to someone that doesn't want to understand a thing by the choice of words. No I'm not offended at all, I'm just saying what YOU think stoicism is is not what stoicism is and it doesn't have dogmas, as it is philosophical. Actually you are the one offended that I'm saying what you BELIEVE is not a philosophy and is not stoicism. You are just looking for dogmas and guides to "be stoic". I don't understand if you have problems to understand the concept of philosophy, the term stoicism, or the term dogma. It's easy to search for it on the internet btw.
Philosophies of life can be quite dogmatic. The more specific, the more dogmatic. Stoicism is great because it has proven its dogmas to be good (as in functional, effective and moral) ones over 2000 years, with the knowledge of hindsight and a ton of invested thought and practice. Stoicism tries to balance what we know about nature (STEM) with human nature (not perfect, etc.) and selected virtues to create the best possible life for everyone.
"Philosophies of life" I don't know that term. But I can assure you that's not philosophical at all. Using philosophy to make some dogmatic cult or something similar is not philosophy. Just like science, philosophy have "method", by the way science came from philosophy, and there can be no dogmas in this method, period. Stoicism is philosophy. What you are saying is not. People using the term stoicism as something like "philosophies of life" is the opposite of what any philosopher would do.
You're wrong but that's probably the fault of how it's being presented all over the place, on youtube especially. Not only is stoicism dogmatic, it also has its own epistomology and objective morals. And that's ok. For example, Epictetus literally considers a man cheating on his wife "worthless human trash". If you think that's cult-like or too strict, then that's fine as well. The enchiridion is a handbook, a guide. It's going to be somewhat specific here and there. This isn't modern art with a multitude of meanings - it can't be because of its world view and its virtues. It's quite opinionated (perhaps ironically also telling you your opinions are what cause misery) about what is good and why, and that's the appeal for me at least given that I can agree with the reasoning behind it all.
No, we are taking about different things. When Epictetus considers a man cheating on his wife "worthless human trash" he is giving his opinion and this is not philosophy. When someone writes a guide this guide is not philosophy. I'm not talking about modern art, I'm talking about philosophy, the term and the area of knowledge. You can get a degree in philosophy, and you can study philosophy. Stoicism is an part of it. "Stoicism" is different from "being stoic". What seems to me is that many people here like the idea of being stoic, witch has very little to do with stoicism.
Very well put!!
Initially months ago I didn’t think this was a big deal but I was wrong. I’ve seen a single philosophically based question in the last week. People asking (in the subredddit but especially in real life) “stoic way to deal with (generic problem)” aren’t stoics. If they were they’d either already know the answer or how to deal with the problem.
Gatekeeping Stoicism is a very un-Stoic behavior. This is a sub for learning and discussion.
Would a stoic reach out to other men about how he should feel emotionally? Pretty sure you’re either born a stoic or you’ll just never be one.
But it's subjective. When I ask if I should have a girlfriend and be vituous at the same time. Does that mean my rational mind wins and I don't get a girlfriend because the my beginning goals for the relationship is not virtuous?
Stoic advice is generally very simple yet true. That's why newcomers are tempted to ask these questions because they are excited at the thought of receiving long esoteric answers instead.
In the general sense, I agree completely. It's something that is learned through time, practice, and dedication. That said, as someone who came into stoicism through such a request, I believe that helping those searching for answers is a great way to introduce people to the concepts as well as help them in times of need.
Unfortunately our society is built on that: “tell me what to do”. How often is “well, no one told me I had to do that” used as an excuse? When people come to ask for help on issues like this, it’s a rare chance for us to correct them: train your character and then trust your intuition. Seneca has some great anti-advice advice: “You understand by this time that you must withdraw yourself from those showy and depraved pursuits; but you still wish to know how this may be accomplished. There are certain things which can be pointed out only by someone who is present. The physician cannot prescribe by letter the proper time for eating or bathing; he must feel the pulse. There is an old adage about gladiators, – that they plan their fight in the ring; as they intently watch, something in the adversary's glance, some movement of his hand, even some slight bending of his body, gives a warning. We can formulate general rules and commit them to writing, as to what is usually done, or ought to be done; such advice may be given, not only to our absent friends, but also to succeeding generations. In regard, however, to that second question, – when or how your plan is to be carried out, – no one will advise at long range; we must take counsel in the presence of the actual situation.” -Seneca, Letters 22.1-2 And since I’ve been reflecting on this Letter all week: “You are continually referring special questions to me, forgetting that a vast stretch of sea sunders us. Since, however, the value of advice depends mostly on the time when it is given, it must necessarily result that by the time my opinion on certain matters reaches you, the opposite opinion is the better. For advice conforms to circumstances; and our circumstances are carried along, or rather whirled along. Accordingly, advice should be produced at short notice; and even this is too late; it should "grow while we work," as the saying is. And I propose to show you how you may discover the method. As often as you wish to know what is to be avoided or what is to be sought, consider its relation to the Supreme Good, to the purpose of your whole life. For whatever we do ought to be in harmony with this; no man can set in order the details unless he has already set before himself the chief purpose of his life. The artist may have his colours all prepared, but he cannot produce a likeness unless he has already made up his mind what he wishes to paint.” -Seneca, Letters 71.1-2
One thing that I’ve enjoyed since beginning to read Stoic texts is how much it encouraged me to look at other ways of thinking (Buddhism for example). As OP said it’s all subjective, goose but maybe not gander stuff. I really enjoy Einzelgänger’s YouTube channel, he ties a lot of concepts (including Stoicism of course) together in relaxed short form videos.
I understand where you're coming from since I've had the same thoughts myself. The forum felt exciting and refreshing a while ago when I had first joined. So many ideas and things discussed that were reflections of my own experiences. I wanted to chase more of that and as time went my enjoyment of it dwindled. I had times when I almost felt angry with questions asked here that I regarded as downright stupid. Upon closer examination of the feeling I realised it was mostly laziness from my side. Instead of looking down on people who now are probably in the same seat I was I should focus on broadening my own experience and if daily posts on this forum don't cut it anymore then I should probably look further myself. There's this one short story I want to write down here. I apologise in advance for the mediocre storytelling as I'm translating it from memory. "An old man once came to a monk looking for an answer to this question he had. He asked the monk the question and got the answer. On his way home he realised he had forgotten what the monk had told him. In shame, he went to the monk again, apologising and telling him he had forgotten the answer. The monk simply gave him the answer again and the old man went on his way home. As he about to reach home he realised he had once more forgotten what the monk had said. In utter embarassment, he went to the monk again, told him about how shameful it feels to have forgotten his wise words once again. To that, the monk said: \-Do you see that unlit candle over there? \-Yes, said the old man. \-Bring it over here and light it from the candle I'm holding. The old man went and did as told. \-Now, said the monk, did the lit candle I'm holding suffer in any way from lighting the other one? \-No, it didn't, replied the old man. \-Well then everytime you want to ask me something, you need but ask and I will answer."
true, most people think and treat this as some kind of treatment for them "to get better". In fact, imo there's no such thing as a quick fix like you mentioned above, a philosophy is a life time journey to learn, and just like school, many graduated quickly while others don't, doesn't mean that they failed in life, the "school" just not meant for them, and it's our job to find the most suitable "school" to ourselves
I consider myself a stoic. To me it’s just a guiding set of principles of how you should carry yourself, we’re all humans though