quote:

Originally posted by mlazarus:
I would probably be more inclined to describe stoicism as accepting that which you cannot control or change. Not necessarily being free of feelings. Adapting stoicism into my life has helped me tremendously. If one is looking for a primer, The Daily Stoic, by Ryan Holiday is a good introduction and very digestible.

Agreed, it’s not about lacking feeling it is about controlling one’s emotions. Accepting things as just being and not letting our own or others influence the perception of things being good or bad. You can control things/influence things or you can not. At its core, Stoicism requires one to accept that outcomes are uncertain. That is why it is the antithesis of progressivism/socialism/marxism. You can not force equal outcomes or equal starting points in life, some people are more talented, smarter, more disciplined than others so the outcomes will always end differently.

I am starting to believe that the plurality of humans actually wants to be controlled and the minority selfishly want to exploit them. I do not see a path to reconciliation but that doesn’t mean it does not exist. Much to that point, I am preparing myself mentally, physically, and working on the skills that I deem important for me to live the life I want to live.

Siddhartha

by Herman Hesse

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:

quote:

Originally posted by mlazarus:
I would probably be more inclined to describe stoicism as accepting that which you cannot control or change. Not necessarily being free of feelings.

Yes, this is my understanding of it also, so far. Have emotions and be human, but do not let them rule you. Stoicism seems to be a school of thought, like many others, that seeks to soothe the agony that is living. Much of spirituality says that life is suffering and goes from there, in terms of what to do about it. Stoicism seems to say “endure it and enjoy it, and here’s some thoughts on how.”

That reflects my understanding also. It is accepting that which you cannot control or change.

A common Asian belief system is Buddhism, which teaches that Life is Suffering to reach a higher plane of existence. The opposite of that is Taoism which teaches that the one constant in life is Change. Change is often painful, but it doesn't require that you Suffer. By accepting Change, you avoid Suffering

quote:

Originally posted by stickman428:
The acceptance of the inevitably of bad things happening and the emphasis on controlling emotions by focusing on that which is directly within your control

Trying to control anything other than how you react is contrary to the teachings of Stoicism

Ryan Holiday is a media strategist and bestselling author who has written a number of books, including the first in a series of books on the cardinal virtues of ancient philosophy including on stoicism and courage. He has framed his private, public, and professional life around the pursuit of these virtues, especially stoicism and courage.

His online website store sells a number of items designed to remind and reaffirm the pursuit of stoicism, including challenge coins.

Courage Is Calling: Fortune Favors the Brave

For any night owls on the forum interested in the subject of stoicism, He is currently being interviewed by George Noory on the syndicated radio program Coast to Coast.

https://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2021-10-03-show/

Ryan Holiday Biography

https://ryanholiday.net/

Marcus Aurelius said we needed three things for a happy life and they all involve the present moment:
1. Objective JUDGEMENT – now at this very moment
2. Unselfish ACTION – now at this very moment, and;
3. WILLing acceptance – now at this very moment of all external events


While stoicism might or might not be the anthesis of progressivism if I were to select to ideas that are VERY much at odds with each other philosophically it would be stoicism and progressivism.

A couple passing observations....

quote:

Progressivism I would define as the perpetual quest to discover new problems and victims in society and then helping them.

I'm going to differ with that definition in the last phrase. I believe progressives constantly invent problems to 1) create an environment for the perpetually unhappy and unhinged to operate since they struggle mightily fitting into regular society and its norms, and 2) to line their pockets. If anyone is 'helped' in any way by virtue of their actions, I think that is more of an accidental, rather than designed, outcome.

quote:

The interwebs definition of progressivism. noun [ U ] us/prəˈɡres·ɪˌvɪz·əm/ social studies. a social or political movement that aims to represent the interests of ordinary people through political change and the support of government actions.

I'd say most of us here fit the category of "ordinary people", yet does anyone here feel any benefits whatsoever in the current behavior of progressives? I'd say the reality is the exact opposite effect.

I can't really define stoicism any better than you and others have here, but IMO the simple definition of progressivism is....a existence built on delusional lies.

I know the OP wasn’t asking for recommendations but I’m reading Ancient Wisdom: Stoic Lessons for Self Mastery by COL Mike Ettore (USMC Retired). It was recommended to me by one of his peers who is an old family friend.

“Stoicism emphasizes that when fate strikes, the true measure of a person is their reaction to what fate has dealt him. Epictetus asserted that a person could either accept and adapt to what he couldn’t change or he could be miserable as he wasted time and energy attempting to change things that simply were not able to be changed.”

Mike Ettore quoting Admiral Stockdale (Vietnam POW/Stoic):

“Speaking for myself, I think of collective guilt as a manipulative tool. It reminds me of the communist “criticism/self-criticism” technique. Many of the precepts of the Stoics depend on an abhorrence of the concept of collective guilt.

The Stoics believe that every man bears the exclusive responsibility himself for his own good and his own evil—and that leads to their further conclusion that it is impossible to imagine a moral order in which one person does the wrong, and another, the innocent, suffers. Now add all that to Epictetus’s firm belief that we are all born with an innate conception of good and evil, and what is noble and what is shameful, what is becoming and unbecoming, what is fitting and inappropriate, what is right to do and what is wrong, and further, remembering that all Stoic talk refers to the inner man, what is going on “way down in here.” It follows that the perpetrator of evil pays the full price for his misdeed in suffering the injury of knowing that he has destroyed the good man with him. Man has “moral sense,” and he reaps the benefits and pays the price for this inheritance.

This self-knowledge that you have betrayed yourself, destroyed yourself, is the very worst harm that can befall a Stoic. Epictetus says:
-No one comes to his fall because of another’s deed.
-No one is evil without loss or damage.
-No man can do wrong with impunity.

I call this whole personal guilt package that Epictetus relied upon, “the reliability of the retribution of the guilty conscience.” As I sometimes say, “There can be no such thing as a ‘victim;’ you can only be a ‘victim’ of yourself.” Remember:
-Controlling your emotions can be empowering.
-Your inner self is what you make it.
-Refuse to want to fear, and you start acquiring a constancy of character that makes it impossible for another to do you wrong.”

quote:

Originally posted by Tom Highway:
“Epictetus asserted that a person could either accept and adapt to what he couldn’t change or he could be miserable as he wasted time and energy attempting to change things that simply were not able to be changed.”

/Pulls out wallet
/Pulls out laminated card

Recently given to me was this, which reads: “It’s not what happens to you, but how you react that matters.” - Epictetus

Truly, words to live by.

Thanks for revisiting this. Such great reading.

This is an interesting take on things I hadn't really considered, thanks. Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes, "Between a stimulus and a response is a space, and in that space is our power to choose our response." Viktor Frankl

Katndog, That is a very good quote. I’ve been thinking about it and how it reinforces or extrapolates a quote that has stuck in my mind.

What happens when we are stimulated and give an immediate response? We rely on our emotions and the stimuli that set into motion our response without taking time to think too much about it.

This made me think of social media. Could social media be using human psychology and philosophical ideas to intentionally cause division? Why would they do that? Engagement drives participation and thus causes more engagement. Unfortunately it’s easy to see how that can have negative or divisive consequences when considering their motives.

It is not easy to keep yourself from an immediate response. I find myself sensing some urgency to respond to something that has angered me or an observation which I find disagreeable or possibly flawed.

The beauty in that quote I think is allowing or maybe learning to not be quick to judgement. The longer or more space we give ourselves between the stimuli and our response the more we allow ourselves to remove emotion from the equation and ask ourselves the question we don’t want to face, what if they are right or what if they are not totally wrong.

Often I’ve said things when angry that I didn’t mean. My emotion and heat of the moment robed me of the ability to think it through.

When I read your post the quote “Better to trip with the feet than with the tongue.” — Zeno came to my mind. But (and I am glad I did) I took the quote you posted and reflected on it for a few days and it led me to consider many things I might have otherwise missed.

Tagged to follow, reread and study further. Thanks guys! Good stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by stickman428:
It is not easy to keep yourself from an immediate response. I find myself sensing some urgency to respond to something that has angered me or an observation which I find disagreeable or possibly flawed.

I see this condition often. For about four hours now I've been formulating a response to an email from a peer at work. I so badly want to "fire back" and show the ridiculousness of the request. A small voice inside reminds me, "no good will come from that." It's tough to want to "show 'em what's what," when shutting the heck up is the far better option.

quote:

Originally posted by stickman428:
“Better to trip with the feet than with the tongue.” — Zeno came to my mind. But (and I am glad I did) I took the quote you posted and reflected on it for a few days and it led me to consider many things I might have otherwise missed.

My "other brother" and I discuss a similar thing often. In his words (and tailored to our work environment), "Sometimes, 'do nothing' is a valid engineering alternative."

While reading about stoicism I came across a quote that basically said something to the effect of : if you read something and find it angering you or think it is offensive it is not the fault of the thing you read but rather your fault. It is our perception of things that guides our emotions not those things themselves.

For some reason that idea really stuck in my mind.

I tried to find the quote and have been thus far unsuccessful but I did find two quotes from Meditations that reinforces this method of thinking.

Someone despises me. That’s their problem. Mine: not to do or say anything despicable. Someone hates me. Their problem. Mine: to be patient and cheerful with everyone, including them. Ready to show them their mistake. Not spitefully, or to show off my own self-control, but in an honest, upright way.

When people injure you, ask yourself what good or harm they thought would come of it. If you understand that, you’ll feel sympathy rather than outrage or anger. Your sense of good and evil may be the same as theirs, or near it, in which case you have to excuse them. Or your sense of good and evil may differ from theirs. In which case they’re misguided and deserve your compassion. Is that so hard?


When I look at the above text and look at the words and actions of todays “progressives” I struggle to find a method of thinking that can possibly me more at odds with stoicism. One seeks to master and understand emotions and their power over us while the other lives for rage and injustice and creates problems if none exist in a seemingly toxic & never ending cycle of rage.

https://youtube.com/c/VoxStoica

One of the many channels I'm subscribed to. It's decent and gives some good information.
Not going to say I totally buy into all of it but a different way of thinking and seeing things isn't always bad.

The older I get the better I am at being stoic.

RE: Progressives....There is a movie that was on Netflix and now seems to be not but is on other sites as a premium. Surviving Progress. There is a line in there that the definition of progress is not a positive, but merely moment in a direction. "Forward or onward momentum towards a destination".

In my experience, "progressives" have co-opted movement toward their goals as always good, no matter what or who or what it impacts. It's taken some time, but eventually movement for the sake of it and calling it progress was doomed to fail. Yes, many of us had or have to endure it with them, but I think we are currently seeing them getting bit in the ass because of this and there is light at the end of the tunnel.

It is nearly impossible to counter this argument. If there was a way to argue stoicism is the anthesis of progressivism it is this description of stoicism compared to the lives of progressives and it’s well known champions.



Stoicism argues for you to better your life and always seek to perfect it

Progressivism seeks to come up with endless excuses for failures and blame others with zero focus ones own failures

The "broken" part of that, is that Stoicism is not about refusing to feel emotions.

It is about refusing to have your actions/reason swayed by them.

Refusing to feel emotions, will mentally break someone.