Why stoicism is good reddit. Something can be time-consuming and good at the same time.

Why stoicism is good reddit Longtime follower of both (Stoicism and Zen, I don’t know other Buddhisms that well). This drive for excellence and improvement of the human community, as opposed to an egotistic approach, is the virtue to be ought. Stoicism is much more practical, and, therefore, way easier for me to understand. In Stoicism, your own virtue/excellence is the only good. It sounds great in theory but never works because it makes you apathetic and passionless and justifies toxic masculinity and global suffering. This is a counterintuitive gloss of what "good" means -- in ordinary language, winning the lottery is good for me and losing is not even if I did the same thing both times. Something can be time-consuming and good at the same time. Even that may feel impossible, but as u/tkmonson pointed out, none of us is the Sage. In Stoic thinking, you look at the actions you take which leave you fundamentally satisfied , and it is a virtue of the judgments that led to those actions that they lead you to be content. Time itself doesn't work very well as an alternate to logos. More over, I am very ashamed that I'm the only one in my family with that kind of problem. set realistic expectations for yourself, treat yourself with kindness. The Stoic view of happiness is much deeper than "more good feels, less bad feels. Changing life-long conditioning is hard work, but very well worth it . No, stoicism is not a remedy - but they are a daily practice --a road map, a path for me to chip away at, one tiny step forward at a time. Books have the power to alienate you and, especially poems, to touch you. As it pertains specifically to emotions - the feelings that come to us are merely impressions carrying a message. Expected norms for masculinity absolutely has room for emotion you only need to look at the retirement of Welsh Rugby legend Shane Williams and the raw emotion during the anthems and the post match interview by everyone - the farewell/ funeral haka for Lomu is also worth a look at if you think men can't be emotional (as an aside But if you're new to Stoicism and interested in learning more about it, The Daily Stoic isn't the right book anyway. We can't be antisocial and be excellent humans, any more than a foal can live in a hamster change and become an excellent horse. That is the virtue available to you. In this analogy, the stoic response would be that all bureaucracies make their own kind sense. It seems obvious. Also, you're making me seem like a jerk, I don't know why you wouldn't add the "Respectfully" part in what I said. Or they recommend books that are inaccurate, like Irvine's A Guide to the Good Life, that omit one whole aspect of Stoicism, virtue, and explaining extremely simple tool like dichotomy of control in way that is completely irrational. Consider all the hours spent scrolling through social media (including Reddit), playing video games, watching TV, and other things that are unnecessary. I'll use the Google definition for Epicurianism: an ancient school of philosophy founded in Athens by Epicurus. This might be a good complement to stoic practice overall. In fact, my findings is that this is how many Stoic thinkers intended it to be. Whenever someone is defending Stoicism from the argument that Stoicism is about becoming emotionless, they explain (correctly) that that is not the… Instead of presenting a whitewashed version of stoicism that everyone else seems to embrace, he actually digs into what Stoicism actually is. We often portray or see ourselves as fulfilled but are we really? To take a modern example, many rich people look really happy in their Lamborghini that are not that happy. To do so, it teaches that living a virtuous life, where virtue is the focus, is the best way to do so, regardless of material excess or material need. He rebuilt everything slow and steady from scratch while feeding the whole family and taking care of their needs. Stoicism as a philosophy won’t necessarily make someone appear or come across as ‘cold’ or ‘emotionless’. They follow their own internal rules. As far as I know, in stoic philosophy having empathy is a good thing and part of being stoic is meant to acknowledge hardship and pain but to be smart and not fall apart, that doesn't help anyone. We have huge amounts of social wiring because humans survive better and thrive in groups. It's not going to be easy or simple. Only focus on the things you can control and your emotions, attitude, viewpoints, etc is it. , they were at worst the run-of-the-mill problems that people encountered, not at the same level of the The good news is that there are several simple arguments you can try to pick out of the Stoic literature. " Eudaimonia is their word for it, from two words good and spirit . Because Stoicism has very good practices that can enhance your life. there is a good stoic exercise, its about collecting insults. A few years later, Ryan Holiday The Obstacle is the Way: The Timeless Art of Turning Trials into Triumph, became a huge international bestseller, which confirmed Stoicism as a genre of modern self-help. . I recently started reading about Stoicism as a way to manage my emotions better and improve my mental health. That is what takes too long. Of course they couldn't correctly attribute that to evolution - they weren't that fantastically prophetic, but they correclty identified it as internal, and that is why Stoic logic holds despite all of the scientific discoveries we've made since, primarily evolution - it turns out that "good" is indeed an innate sense, a praecognition, that Stoicism works on mental reflection a lot, what one might call a meditation on reality and the nature of things. This is very accurate, but my mom and older people are also discovering stoicism and it’s a way of life that’s slowly being developed. g. Calmly state exactly what you take issue with. People is not only going back into stoicism as well into Christianism or something similar that gives values and purpose, that's the main reason. This is a question far more in keeping with Stoic thought - "good" in Stoicism is something objective and measurable, in fact the Stoic "good", defined as something both natural and reasonable is physically measurable, because it amounts to "wellbeing", which is a physiological state. What is good for others, is good for me because I live in this community. I’ll try to be brief, ha ha. You can writhe in pain Stoically. Stoicism is meant to be a philosophy of virtue ethics. I'm trying to fight it but it is very hard. In my personal experience, listening and reading about Stoicism is a refreshing and calming respite from all of the drama, overselling, and general freaking out that I feel surrounded by these days. To the same degree Stoicism is misinterpreted (e. the important thing is to keep The ancient Stoics fell in this category, and this is why virtue is the centerpiece of their moral system: because according to virtue ethics, being virtuous -- basically internalizing what is "good" to the point that you are good by nature -- is the foundation of morality. It discourages us from trying to pursue things that are not fully in our control. Stoicism and virtue isn't about disregarding feelings. But not as a masochist but as wise man. And of course, emotions arose biologically for a reason—it’s important to be able to express our reactions to events coherently. I would argue that being stoic is actually a good thing. Structure works pretty good for most instances of logos, intelligence, reason, as well. ” (Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, 6. Second, you are sooo not alone. You can also find information about frequently discussed topics, like flaws in Stoicism, Stoicism and politics, sex and relationships, and virtue as the only good, for a few examples. This is not in conformity with Stoic philosophy, as there is no concept of being a good or bad person, and certainly not a lesser kind of person, but rather assenting to good or bad impulses, or impressions. Hello, I have been learning more about stoicism lately, I like it’s ideas of dichotomy of control and to act logically. It's good to hear a woman's opinion on Stoicism, as there is a perception of Stoicism being mostly male (A stereotype that we need to dismantle). Btw, this isn’t a criticism of Stoicism at all. Because stoicism ignore these things is why it can be harmful. If money brings you happiness, if it puts you in a good mental state I don't see the problem. Same with a good outcome from a good intention and a bad outcome from a bad intention. I’d say stoicism is still a good tool but you gotta approach it from an ADHD point of view, not a neurotypical point of Stoicism is a good way to do that, but it does point to a bad set of circumstances in the West imo. While some things are harmful, on the whole they are net-beneficial. The more popular texts tend not to go in as much detail, sometimes to a fault, but some books (IMO) strike that balance between accessibility for the layperson and trustworthy scholarship (e. Now First, congratulations! You seem to be in a good place and that’s truly important. ” Basically, enjoy what parts of your life you can enjoy, and don’t be a dick. If the latter: We actually have several to choose from. That is, the stoic must first believe that the universe is logical, whether or not they follow a god. But before I answer, I want to say that I’m one of those who developed a Stoic mindset/way of being without even knowing that Stoicism is a thing (for reasons that I could explain, but won’t right now, for tl;dr reasons). That isn't undone without effort. Cicero for instance On Duties. Assenting to good impulses is acting in virtue, assenting to bad, or erroneous impulses is acting in vice. I’m an over-talker too and so are a few posters on this very thread (no judgement). The Greek philosophy of Stoicism, though, is the original inspiration for cognitive therapy, and huge volumes of research show that has psychological benefits. I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. It seems unclear to me what “vice” actually is and why this should be avoided. , John Sellars’ Stoicism, or AA Long’s Epictetus, or (edit:maybe) Graver’s Stoicism and Emotion). But from stoic point of view emotions are in the best case neutral. I think everyone wants to be good, we just justify our evil actions often, at least by default, that's why not everyone strives to be better, they believe they're already good. This conclusion comes from the general Stoic principle that our (humans) nature is a nature of a social animal with the capacity to reason. If the former: Sellars:Stoicism is good, So is Rist's Stoic Philsophy. The surviving stoic theory/text is generally lacking in any conception of inspiration, from the gods, daemons or elsewhere. This doesn’t mean it is good to have uncontrollable rage. Why you should do good from a Stoic perspective is because good is desirable in itself. Not being optimistic but yet neutral, knowing good and bad WILL come, and embracing it. But an ideal stoic does not do things which are not in his best interest out of fear, he does it because he chooses to. You can even run away from your problems Stoically. I've only seen one half of a snippet on the stoic ideas on beauty (that is all that survives) and nothing about the extant explanation is particularly beautiful. I've searched for some stoic advices but I found nothing. Ryan Holiday and his relation to Stoicism is comparable to The Minimalists’ relation to minimalism. It's much deeper and much better than pleasure or simple happiness. People have different opinions about what is good. I am not familiar with Epicurean askeses as I am with Stoic askeses. I saw a lot of bad reviews on it from amazon and saw a lot of other people saying that the best translation of the book was Gregory Hays's translation. The stoic answer, as I understand it, is that if you have to be a patient, be a good patient. Good passions are always good no matter the circumstance. It's PEMDAS or the Pythagorean Theorem. I would explain Stoicism as a life practice that centers on using reason. Stoicism isn't an answer, it's a process. In the Meditations, which are a sort of spiritual diary, we get to see Marcus Aurelius doing that wrestling. So it's not so much kill the ego as control it. It is about doing what is actually good for you. Stoicism is an ancient philosophy that originated in Greece and was later adopted by the Romans. I guarantee that if you choose some goal, some profession, right now, you can achieve it in a reasonable amount of EMOTION. And even though it's a strange analogy, I think that a stoic can view theism in the same way. Food, clothes, housing, books, educational efforts, healthcare efforts; as well as science, engineering and design to make all the aforementioned more effective. A lot of what Ryan Holiday writes is better suited towards the alpha-type neurotypical brain, at least that’s my opinion. When times are good, it keeps me enjoying what I have, never falling into the hedonistic treadmill. Pleasure is not bad in and of itself. If they exist, they are not that popular. It's reasonable, and it conforms with our nature. People can give whatever they want the label of “Stoicism,” but that won’t change actual Stoicism. But it's also about time and place and I have been told that my stoicism is "toxic. I was going on parties too much to escape reality. Irvine published A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy, the first bestselling modern book on Stoicism. So does it really matter if you've accepted something or not? You apply Stoicism and reach the conclusions you reach. -Beyond Good and Evil Nietzsche says that Stoicism limits us from living to our highest potential. As far as business leaders, they of course would love more corporate yes men that dedicate their lives to padding their pockets. Alternative post would I guess be: Why should someone be a Stoic? The answer is really in Stoicism already, ''to achieve the good life''. Right, our thoughts, our mental state. A repeated theme is avoiding vice and seeking virtue, but “why” we avoid vice is not fully explained. I think a good stoic is sort of like a rational hedonist. It's honestly more of a reason why Stoicism is good. Strange that after all that good analysis of CBT and Stoicism as symptom controllers, your final decision is to take meds. If you need some encouragement, find a 4yr old at your local school everyone says is good at math and challenge him to a comprehensive math test. I am surprised about why Stoicism isn’t as popular as Buddhism (or Zen). Why the contrast in members of the same family? No. I think what constitutes a "good stoic" varies widely depending on who you ask. See that the relationship is the other way around - in post-Christian thinking, you re told to pursue good, which leads to "why is good good?". Bad passions like anger, viciousness, lust, are always bad in all circumstances. " Yes there is definitely this belief that stoicism is also just another example of toxic male behavior. It's meant to provide a daily reading for reflection, it's not supposed to be an introduction to Stoicism. Now I'm a new student to Stoicism but maybe I just have fresh eyes. If Stoicism is actually trending, then perhaps it is in reaction to: so-called "outrage culture" and overdoing sensitivity. The better you are at incorporating stoicism into your life, the less those negative events will affect you. “Stoicism has never worked and is useless as a philosophy. For one in Stoic ontology time doesn't even exist, all we have is the present moment that belongs, the past and future are incorporeals that have no causal power in the way logos would need to. On the Stoic view the only things that are good for me are the good choices I make. It's like asking someone if they are good at cooking or not . Human behavior hasn’t changed much over the last 2,000 years. Good and bad are emotions always in our control. I even find my own misfortune humorous sometimes. It doesn't matter what way that manifests for you: If you're doing what's good for you, you are in effect being a Stoic. ME is one of the best in Spanish, it is based on several philosophical currents and deals with universal principles, values and know their difference, stoicism is one of the most named or is what I like to believe ^^ Pedro Vivar is the author of the podcast and three related books, the first one is called - Stoic Echoes - I think it will be good if you listen to it, he is all example A Stoic is a follower of the philisophical school of Stoicism where as a "stoic" is a person who can endure pain or hardship without showing their feelings or complaining. Stoicism states that we should only focus on things that we can control such as our emotions, thoughts, and actions and that's it. Being a Stoic therefore means spending a lot of time wrestling with those impressions. I believe virtue is necessary for a happy life, so I think this is a good thing. Not all of the blame for the hustle culture lies there, but if as much time was spent there on Stoic ethics and virtue as on the dichotomy of control, or on the 'value of the obstacle' then perhaps the reflection I've been addicted to food for a long time. " That's why tarot, and astrology, and the Rapture, and the Great Replacement, and blood-and-soil nationalism, and revolutionary socialism, and traditionalist Catholicism, and shrooms, and ketamine are all popular right now. The only good or bad is moral good or bad. Stoicism on Fire is the most thorough and therotically in depth podcast on Stoicism I've come across. The latter has many many variations like Tibetan Buddhism, Japanese and many like that. Joy, contentment, caution. Stoic or not these things are scientifically true: - hedonistic adaptation will make you miserable. It's strange because numbing yourself with meds is the most prevalent symptom controller there is. We must accept them as we accept everything outside our control. For me, THEEEE most immutable takeaway of stoicism is this: who am I to deserve, nor expect, nor demand a reality the rest of the world doesn't also get?! Feb 6, 2023 · Stoicism is having a cultural moment, with bestselling books and podcasts taking this ancient philosophy to a new audience. A good accident from a neutral position is just a happy accident and our derived happiness is adjusted accordingly. Man's first attraction is towards the things in accordance with nature; but as soon as he has understanding, or rather become capable of 'conception' — in Stoic phraseology ennoia — and has discerned the order and so to speak harmony that governs conduct, he thereupon esteems this harmony far more highly than all the things That's why there were books in antiquity called things like Stoic Self-Contradictions but nothing like Platonic Self-Contradictions. Stock your Stoic refrigerator with a natural discipline of feeding your mind a few snacks at a time, and then do a deep dive when you're not exhausting yourself with a passion for it. The philosophy stands where the Stoics left it, in my view. I also prefer to know why, not just what people do. Might be good for Stoicism if Epicureanism becomes the next trendy thing instead. I prefer Stoicism but Epicureanism is a valid philosophy which is much misunderstood. From a stoic perspective these are undesired effects, since stoicism requires a continuous presence of mind and an inner tranquillity. He didn't lose hope, and most importantly, he didn't lose his sanity because he practiced the stoic philosophy. With Stoicism you are trying to change a mindset that was most likely set in childhood and generally goes against the rest of society. don't seek out increasing luxury - caring what others think will make you miserable. I think you are likely more critical with your family since you care about them and want good things for them, as such you struggle to watch them to things that will make their future worse. Marcus Aurelius (A STOIC) has even said happiness depends on the state of our thoughts. I hope you have a big mirror, because the rest of this fragment is just as good :-) But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own - not of the same blood or birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine. Being happy is emotion. The use of the term nature in stoicism has nearly the opposite meaning. Stoicism is about accepting, not rejecting, emotions, which are part of human nature. The greater pleasures of good health which you've cited are instrumental; a human being in good health may achieve his ends unhindered, and in the classic stoic view these ends relate to understanding logos, attaining virtue and so on. As you practice stoicism, the scale will increase to 2-10, then 3-10 and so on. By no means have I read all the material out “Revere the gods, and look after each other. Feeling you are good is a natural want, Marcus was wise to keep himself in check more than most because he was in a position that would corrupt more than most every new skill is hard if you try to start farther ahead than you are. All the Stoics had one thing in common: they knew themselves extremely well. We are a community committed to learning about and applying philosophical Stoic principles and techniques. So was apartheid. The goal of Stoicism is to live with Virtue, that is act in accordance with wisdom, justice, courage, and moderation. A person spends their whole life learning how to think wrong. Keeping the perspective in the second point is part of what allows a Stoic to endure hardship well, along with a philosophy of impermanence similar to Buddhism (everything is impermanent, so don't stress out At the heart is Stoicism is the idea that out initial impressions of the world, including what is good and bad, are often wrong. Life is short — the fruit of this life is a good character and acts for the common good. A Christian gains salvation by faith not by works (the person can never be good enough to 'earn' heaven, but belief in Jesus is sufficient). This is why, in the Stoic view, we're good to others. Just try to listen without anger as long as you can and maybe you will find some new possibilities to improve your stoic skills. So why the hell should we bother being happy in the first place? It’s the same reason why Stoicism is still applicable today. But from what I understand that makes a person a good stoic, I feel like he would fit. Edit: To elaborate, what makes something objectively good or evil, Stoicism argues that the only object good is virtue and the only objective evil is vise, but why? Wouldn’t we need some form of God to tell us what is objectively good or objectively evil, because if that’s not the case then it’s all subjective. Some things that are uniquely similar: Monism: there is no body-mind divide in both. Your house burning down may be undesirable but it is not bad unless it harms your character. ) if not more. The same cannot be said of his son and successor, Commodus. , Stoics advocates for the removal of emotions, Stoics are cold robots, Stoicism advocates being a doormat, etc. Overall I felt that throughout the entire movie, Bradley was a good definition of a stoic, as no matter what he went through and with expection of a few instances, Bradley remained calm and composed. I find however that Buddhism gives you more detail and guidance in a step by step approach of how to train your mind (through meditation) to achieve a shift in thinking. Good luck to you on your quest and studies, and ask more questions about the school of thought's doctrines and precepts. I can't agree with the last paragraph, you can control your thoughts, feelings and perspectives as much as you can control your heartbeats. It avoids the popular trend Stoicism has taken ("Do this to become successful in business etc") and focuses on what exactly the ancient stoics had in mind in living a tranquil life. They would see moral outcomes and moral rules as simply the symptoms or And the corollary - being good requires a conscious choice to lessen it. This question vexed me as well, and while reading an article, Virtue as the Sole Intrinsic Good in Plato's Early Dialogues by Scott Senn, this piece jumped out: He [Terence Irwin] thinks Socrates held that virtue, though a purely instrumental means to happiness--being knowledge of good and bad--is a means sufficient for happiness because it ensures the satisfaction of the virtuous person's This is why I’m writing and sharing this now, to make the case on why Stoicism is not enough. Marcus Aurelius is widely regarded as one of the "good" Roman emperors and Stoicism was presumably a key influence. Maybe for some people it’s the idea of being independent that makes them seek stoic advice, or maybe people are drawn into the practice because they seek control over their life. Sep 15, 2024 · Stoicism's broadest goal is about how to live a good life a life that you won't regret at its end. In that space is our power to choose our response. Just like smiling signals to those around you that something has gone right (for you), scowling indicates the opposite. Keep in mind also that randomness and chaos are not the opposite of Providence, and an appeal to design is a poor argument logically. To me, a stoic philosophy advocates rationality and discipline in the face of tragedy and when things are out of our control. But there are problems with Stoicism, both in its modern and ancient No matter what philosophy you try to follow, it's going to be difficult to follow it over 50% of the time. what exactly is Stoicism and how does it relate to emotions? I imagine a lot of this can be covered in the r/Stoicism FAQ; probably good to look there first. Undoubtedly. Stoicism--as everything noble and worth having in life--requires constant attention and effort. I tend to try to make people feel comfortable. And if you don’t know that, then the first thing the Stoics would have you learn is about the nature of the good and about your nature as a human being. Virtue as sole good: in Stoicism this is said in as many words; in Zen, practicing the Paramita’s more or less makes merit and reincarnation irrelevant. If they like the way they cook their food they will say they are good, if not they are bad . This meaning of the word stoic confuses people. My Mother is very similar, she was a very Stoic women in regards to taking care of the house, feeding her kids, doing what had to be done to make sure we were safe and well. Top-level comments on 'Seeking Stoic Guidance' posts can come from flaired users only. I mean, I'm not gonna deny I'm probably just scratching the surface of Stoicism. But Stoicism specifically? I think the creed is easy to grasp and hard to apply. Saying, I don't want to end up there. In 2008, William B. Belief in that God is an important part of classical Stoicism, because they claimed that all of existence was moving towards objectives that were generally provident or good for existence. So my question why even bother to be happy?Ok, from epicurean point of view - be happy because it is a nice feeling and the alternative is not being happy which feels bad. And so none of them can hurt me. Both mens rea attenuate the outcome. THis is not accurate and it's not how it works - literally every action is the result of judging that action to be good. Most people will say it's bad in terms of taste while others good. It is not your problem, but this person's. However, in the end I'd say it is important to remind yourself that it is not up to you, particularly if it doesn't end up well and you start to look for reasons why it didn't. So, do good, feel good, end up painfully starving to death, or be bad, feelI don't really know how, and end up not painfully starving to death, but dying some other way. Back to pursuing preferred indifferents, I'd also like to highlight that the Stoics determined things as good if they could be used to perform virtue. The only reason a stoic would remain subjugated would be if they believed the circumstances of their subjugation were outside of their control, but I think it's obvious that there are many ways to improve one's life and a generally unjust world that are inside of their control, and that's why stoicism is so appealing to many. Just as one could live a good life, I'm sure we could work out a philosophy for a good eternity, and you can believe in an afterlife and still live a stoic life. Or if a food tastes good or not . It provides direction so that you are not controlled by your emotions - a philosophy of managing emotions as opposed to removing them entirely. They bring a philosophy into the mainstream, help draw a lot of people to something that they might not have stumbled upon otherwise, and then spend the rest of their career trying to rehash the same information, finding different ways to monetize it. He wasn't afraid to do what's was right (going to back to help police officer) and did what was necessary to secure the safety of his wife and child. One is that as reasoning creatures we're already committed to using reason well and grasping truth and doing so optimally would lead to the virtue of wisdom. The philosophy that suggests to not get affected by anything in life, good or bad. I just read a few texts on Epicurus, and it does a good job contrasting Epicureanism with Stoicisim. I'm curious why an individual's testimony of applying Stoicism towards significant adversity is necessary for you to accept or reject the claim that Stoic ethics is the pursuit of practical wisdom in the context of our nature as rational and social animals and our particular roles, aptitudes, and inclinations. Stoicism was a school of philosophy a long time ago. To understand stoicism you must understand the world view of those that taught and developed it, and that included an absolute and motivating belief in a benevolent providential Universe or God. Thus making modern stoicism incredibly soulless and artless. The Stoic viewpoint nowadays is a bit skewed because we have so little material about the Stoics that would now say that Marcus Aurelius was a Stoic philosopher, even though he was more of a practicioner of Stoicism. Stoicism in itself doesn't provide you happiness, but rather increases the "floor" of this happiness spectrum. Even if Platonists like Iamblichus had problems developing their views of moral responsibility, freedom, etc. For example,seeking pleasure with moderation (which makes a lot of sense to me) along with other interesting ideas. So much has happened in the past. The idea that an action does not represent a judgment about how to act, and that it's somehow occurring without "internal work" is a direct contradiction of both the Stoic model and how the mind actually works If this is a possible outcome of doing good things. I got the book meditations from the penguin classics translated by Martin Hammond. No amount of practical stoicism “cured” my ADHD traits so I just got burned out and frustrated. Those are not random, I do not have time for picking out all the resources for such a trivial thing, but they were either the most upvoted answers there or or some of the most upvoted there in the below threads, reflecting a general consensus here. they are people who do not have control over their emotions. From Cicero's de Finibus Book 3 (quoted from Cato the Younger): . That time I like the tranquility vs virtue discussion and I think when it comes down to explaining what Stoicism is the discussion falls just a hair short. faltering is inevitable and abundant for all of us, your mistakes will become insight as you continue learning to balance your stoic practice with your day-to-day life. This does place emphasis on the Daily Stoic's own expression of Stoicism in the form a brand identity, and that is worth critiquing. In my case I found stoicism through an existentialist crisis. It's especially for this reason that we should fight harder to understand its principles and live by them. ” Or Romanticizing pre-civilized societies. Being addicted make me aware that I'm not a good man,let alone a good stoic. If one were to chose to follow the Stoic doctrine for a tranquil life, one will pursue virtue, which is acting according to nature, which is always using reason to work towards the betterment of the human community. It has a lot of good information and recommended readings. But I agree with you: the key is placing less value on the acquisition of pleasure, not purposely abstaining from pleasure entirely. To find out more about the flair system on r/Stoicism, please check the wiki page to find out why top-level posts are restricted, as well as how a flair can be obtained. r/Stoicism subreddit introduction, rules, and resource guide. Let's take for example broccoli. To be clear I know bad deeds can get you into exactly the same place. It’s the same reason why Stoicism is still applicable today. There’s more nuance to Epicureanism than that, but I think people turning to philosophy for self-help gravitate toward Stoicism because it offers a new perspective that isn’t as obvious—that one should pursue virtue as the sole good. So this is nothing new and it's out there and for good reason. It absolutely isn't good to fall apart when things go rough or be co dependent. r/Stoicism is the fucking worst we all know it, but then you get people who now believe r/Stoicism actually reflects stoicism. That’s certainly a good thing. I know that Stoicism isn’t a religion (a religion has set of unquestionable beliefs) , but a broader and much more open minded philosophy (as Seneca said ‘Zeno is our dearest I choose Stoicism over the others primarily because the providentially ordered, material world view is appealing to me and because Stoicism holds up better than some others in extreme cases: “Virtue is the only good” means even someone sick or disabled can achieve the same degree of good life as an Olympic athlete; not so for a Peripatetic. Thus, Stoicism seems to fulfill the conditions for the first item. 598K subscribers in the Stoicism community. Furthermore, without the Stoic God the Stoic ethics may be incomplete for you, but plenty of modern practitioners of modern Stoicism find no difficulty with this. Working harder produces more of these This is a good concise summation of the nods to/from stoicism and Buddhism. This is also why Richard Thaler won the Nobel Prize in economics on 2017: a lot of the things that we do are completely irrational. The reason why is because good and bad are personal opinions. Simply recognizing that our judgements lead to reactions, is the easy part, but deeply examining your judgements, reflecting and changing your judgements In stoicism emotions (passions) are good, bad, or indifferent. When you look at school shooters, abusers, etc. Honestly I am new to stoicism, but I don’t wish to be define as a stoic even after I get more into it, I am of the that the mind that if i start to define myself as such I will close my mind to other teachings that could be beneficial to me, stoicism I noted has a lot to teach me but if I don’t agree with every single point in it, I just I am not an expert, so take my words cum grano salis. It's just that at the times the stoics wrote their literature, women had no rights, slavery was rampant. Having become 'saved' they want to live in the way God ordains which is for the good of the community and the world In this respect the outworking of belief is exactly the same as stoicism It's not actually. So even though stoicism and daoism are superficially very similar, they actually turn out to be almost opposites in a way; Stoicism advocates for a kind of rigid self-disciplinary detachment, while Daoism advocates for a kind of free, embodied engagement in which the "detachment" is a letting go of the instrumental thinking which stoicism would Being honest. Working produces these things. Some people think money is good, and don't think virtue is good. Those people will then cheat or steal to get money. In stoicism, they are considered to have an incorrect idea about what is good. Stoicism aims to reach a fulfilled He's a bit of a hard atheist and gets really offended by the ancient Stoic use of words like god, divine, providence and so on (even though in the Stoic context they mean something completely different to the Judaeo-Christian equivalents, but he can't seem to get his head away from the latter), so he has thrown out all of Stoic physics/theology Posted by u/TremblingSun - 2 votes and 9 comments A lot of products of work are seen as good. I think this is a really good and interesting question. If you aren't ready for the 10 course meal, don't rush yourself. But we go much deeper than that. Listen, I am a stoic because it happens to coincide nicely with everything that science says about happiness. Wisdom is the only true good be cause it can only be used for good, whereas inddiferents can be used for vice. Likewise, when they say "good" we are wrong to translate this to a metaphysical "good" of the kind Christianity espouses, for they were talking about empirical observations about what makes humans happy, meaning that our various neurological and psychological theories of human wellbeing are the true successors to the Stoic notion of "good The stoic call to abide by nature or logos is not remotely synonymous with the idea of abandoning the constraints of civilization - or “modern constructs” -and celebrating a return to prehistoric “nature. It is a philosophy that emphasizes self-control, rationality, and virtue as the keys to living a good life. In addition, stoicism allows me to get shit done no matter what I am going through. Farther, there is simply more evidence that Stoicism, and things simular to stoicism, produces happier, more well rounded people, than other systems and beliefs. don't do it. Stoicism is hard to practice because it's a different set of thinking than what you've been used to your entire life. Is stoicism really THAT different than Epicureanism? Well, as I understand, in Stoicism ego is something to be controlled so we don't think we're better than anyone else. On the other hand, as much as I would give to be able to see my grandad again, that doesn't make it true. If you are newbie, i hope its not against rules to share playlist on YouTube here, try to start there: Right. 30) "The primary mission of the Stoics, in other words, is to be helpful to others and serve the greater good, and they don't do this to make themselves happy. from what I interpret, virtue is the highest good and to be virtuous you must act with courage, wisdom, temperance, and justice. I have noticed that people are attracted to those Stoic practices, and not necessarily to the theoretical ideology. Remains calm, is wise, wants to do the right thing. You should look through the FAQ if you haven't. Viktor Frankl reportedly said, "Between stimulus and response there is a space. If life was a math problem, Stoicism doesn't teach you that the answer is 2 or 4. The r/Stoicism subreddit is a forum for discussion of Stoicism, the school of philosophy founded by Zeno of Citium in the 3rd century BC. Stoicism gives purpose against an hedonistic and materialistic world. I understand that it can be easy and that it "feels good" to daydream about another person - it brings a sort of tranquillity that things will be okay. Stoicism is the process you use to solve the math problem. On that note, no one is "good" at anything who has not become good through practice. So, you're not understanding men, stoicism and psychology here. Stoicism is easy to use because it’s absolute, you can ALWAYS control your outlook on things. War happened every few years. Regarding meditation, I always felt lost in the Buddhist mediation, especially at retreats. We are still lying, dying, loving, desiring, stealing, crying. I don’t see it that way. Put crudely then, Stoicism appears to be good for mental health but stoicism appears to be bad for mental health - we definitely don't want to confuse the two. The school rejected determinism and advocated hedonism (pleasure as the highest good), but of a restrained kind: mental pleasure was regarded more highly than physical, and the ultimate pleasure was held to be freedom from anxiety and mental pain, especially that arising from Why you CAN pursue a good reputation in Stoicism Stoicism in Practice If you wish to be well spoken of, learn to speak well (of others): and when you have learned to speak well of them, try to act well, and so you will reap the fruit of being well spoken of. This is why we study our history, hopefully: to learn from our past mistakes and improve. The greatest good for a human being, Epicurus thought, is friendship – pleasure in the presence of another individual, and the security of knowing that help will be given if ever it is needed. This has good and bad results (successful society/ Staying with an abusive partner), but the good overall outweighs the bad by far. He himself was not a Stoic but he covers a lot of Stoic philosophy in his works. You can cry Stoically. nnrtt ioocdka jzunu xjganqpu xshrkb izmp elfmiys tgkfyb nmcgc ekfjf