
A Simplified Modern Approach to Stoicism - edmaroferreira
http://philosophy-of-cbt.com/2013/02/03/a-simplified-modern-approach-to-stoicism/
======
guylhem
Shorter list :

\- Read the "Epistulæ Morales ad Lucilium" from Seneca

\- Read the "Bhagavad Gita" to avoid being stuck in a given interpretation.

\- Shy away from religion. Find the truth by yourself

And therefore make your own list of how to live your day. Feeling grateful and
trying to see the lord in every being you encounter, friend or foe, is is
mine.

Also "no man does evil knowingly" seems wrong - sorry, but a tiny minority of
people _really_ want to see the world burn.

Just remember there are very few of them, that by default you should assume
people have good intentions but sometimes fail.

EDIT: Following the excellent comment of nerdfiles one can only see with
"showdead" option, order of reading is important, and my suggestion might not
be the best.

Not everyone can start with Seneca. You will certainly need a starting point
to take advantage of the stoic teachings, ie something to help you see how
useful stoicism could be to you.

This starting point is Logic for many people, but it can be anything that
tries to teach how to look for the truth and to pinpoint problems. I
personally found Atlas Shrugged very interesting, others will have different
tastes. The Dharma can be useful. Richard Feynman work is great. A vast
personal experience could also help, since people who have traveled the world
usually develop interesting insights.

(BTW nerdfiles, your account has been blacklisted)

~~~
kingmanaz
>\- Shy away from religion. Find the truth by yourself

Keep an open mind. While reading the Stoics take the trouble to read
Augustine's Confessions or dip into Aquinus' Summa Theologica. Breeze through
the Quran. Spend some time with the Book of Mormon. Drop into a synagog and
get to know the worshipers there. Don't dismiss ideas out of hand. Contemplate
them, and let your curiosity lead you where you need to be.

~~~
guylhem
Excellent suggestion: religious textbooks are great sources of inspiration.

However, they are dangerous, in the fact that while 90% of the content is
great, the remaining 10% may damage one's personal progression. These 10%
require adequate preparation to be seen as what they are - pitfalls, which is
why I suggested to "shy away" from them, at least initially.

It is far too easy to get "stuck" in religion and take the whole 100% as
perfectly valid thoughts. Swallowing up the full doctrine "fills" the cup of
the mind, which is no longer open to further knowledge.

The only "safe" reading might be the Dharma, because of it self-criticizing
nature and the suggestion to dismiss the teachings if they conflict with
reality and experience

~~~
kingmanaz
Dogma prejudices atheists just as often as theists. For example, Darwin's
Origin of Species contains a pitfall in that its readers can be persuaded to
believe certain families of mankind are less evolved than others. Similarly,
Marx's Capital and Manifesto of the Communist Party can lead one to believe
that inequality is purely a function of material possession. A disciple of
Smith's Wealth of Nations could reduce the world to merely a place to make
money and which is the slave of market forces, etc. All of these works, while
potentially "dangerous", stand on their own merits and should be read.

"Adequate preparation" is prejudice and should be spelled out as such.
Socrates' dialogs stand as examples of the traditional Western method of
exploring ideas, wherein one man questions another with the object of mutually
understanding the essence of a thing, or, by being prodded toward future
learning when having reached an uncomfortable ataraxy. This differs
fundamentally from the critical theory taught in modern universities, wherein
one is taught, rather than to seek an idea's essence, to tear it down
beforehand.

Instead of fearing ideas, one should explore them.

~~~
guylhem
That's an interesting point - one I mostly agree with.

But if you explore the ideas fully, how much do you keep of your initial self?
And how do you do that, if you knows beforehand of the pitfalls, such as the
ones you mentioned? How can you explore ideas if you already fear them??

From my limited understanding of philosophy, changing oneself too much is not
desirable, since in the end the orignal opinions and self are lost -
<http://lesswrong.com/lw/y5/the_babyeating_aliens_18/>

Analysis requires a reference, a broader frame, to detect such pitfalls - it
seems pointless to experience ideas whose defaults are already too obvious to
you.

~~~
kingmanaz
>But if you explore the ideas fully, how much do you keep of your initial
self?

The point of learning _is_ to change oneself. Socrates addressed this by
likening the mind to a wax block, upon which ideas are "stamped" (in his Meno
(sp) Plato contradictorily claimed that all knowledge is recalled from a
separate preincarnate existence, but that's another topic). In learning one
seeks to move from one state of knowing to another. Ideas change oneself. The
alternative is shunning ideas, and thereby shunning one's growth.

>And how do you do that, if you knows beforehand of the pitfalls, such as the
ones you mentioned?

Do not assume one will be inevitably converted by what one reads.

>How can you explore ideas if you already fear them?

Stop fearing them. Be stoic, or use some other virtue to overcome one's
trepidation.

>Analysis requires a reference

Correct. The reference of analysis are its fundamentals. Much of Aristotle's
Organon and Metaphysics, as well as Plato's Timaeus, Kant's Critique of Pure
Reason, Plotinus' Enneads, etc., concern the fundamentals of thought. The
examination of these fundamentals, while in some sense "obvious", are in no
way "pointless".

The true pitfall is fear.

------
lpolovets
If anyone is interested in a book on the subject, I really like William
Irvine's "A Guide to the Good Life" ([http://www.amazon.com/Guide-Good-Life-
Ancient-Stoic/dp/01953...](http://www.amazon.com/Guide-Good-Life-Ancient-
Stoic/dp/0195374614))

I have some extensive book notes here: [http://www.quora.com/Leo-
Polovets/Exceptionally-long-book-no...](http://www.quora.com/Leo-
Polovets/Exceptionally-long-book-notes-for-exceptionally-good-books/Notes-on-
A-Guide-to-the-Good-Life-by-Irvine)

~~~
kingmanaz
Personally, I would cut out the middle men. Avoid glossy-covered and over-
marketed summaries of other men's work. Grab a copy of Epictetus' discourses
and his Enchiridion. Read Aurelius' meditations. Get familiar with Plutarch's
Lives.

This will get one started cheaply: [http://www.ebay.com/itm/LUCRETIUS-
EPICTETUS-12-Britannica-Gr...](http://www.ebay.com/itm/LUCRETIUS-
EPICTETUS-12-Britannica-Great-
Books-1952-A-/200793378954?pt=US_Fiction_Books&hash=item2ec037d08a) Be aware,
this volume includes Lucretius who is not a stoic, rather, a typical
reductionist Epicurian. The Enchiridion can also be found cheaply:
[http://www.ebay.com/itm/Enchiridion-Dover-Thrift-Editions-
By...](http://www.ebay.com/itm/Enchiridion-Dover-Thrift-Editions-By-
Epictetus-/310586449786?pt=Fiction&hash=item4850651f7a) . Here's a fine
translation of Plutarch's Lives: [http://www.ebay.com/itm/Plutarch-Great-
Books-of-the-Western-...](http://www.ebay.com/itm/Plutarch-Great-Books-of-the-
Western-
World-1952-Vol-14-/251209763683?pt=Antiquarian_Collectible&hash=item3a7d44cb63)
. These works are cheap and readily available used on eBay and elsewhere. Take
advantage of it if you are seriously interested in learning.

Avoid the marketing. Read Knuth or K&R rather than "How to Program in 24
hours", etc. The same goes for philosophy. There's nothing new under the sun.
Seek out what's stood the test of time, incorporate it into your fundamentals,
and proceed from there.

~~~
snth
Ah, but we do know more about the world in many ways than the original Stoics
did. William Irvine's book recasts the Stoic teachings a bit: we don't believe
that we were created by Zeus, for example, so he talks about how to interpret
Stoicism in an atheist way (if one wishes).

~~~
kingmanaz
>Ah, but we do know more about the world

I disagree completely. The appeal to progress is just as much a fallacy as the
appeal to tradition. We do know more physical minutia, ie., slates and chalk
have fallen to iPhones, sandals to sports cars, and yet the essential spirit
of man is the same as it ever was, and that is what the Stoics are addressing.

The descendents of Aristotle have continued reducing the world to its sub-
components in the centuries since Plato and he disagreed as to whether reality
is in the whole or the part. But again, this is a fundamental division found
in philosophy, and ultimately nothing new.

>he talks about how to interpret Stoicism in an atheist way

...it would be better if he had taught how to interperet it in an agnostic
way, rather. Atheism is a closed-minded agnosticism.

~~~
igravious
> The appeal to progress is just as much a fallacy as the appeal to tradition.

And what if the spirit of man is shaped by his technology and culture?

> Atheism is a closed-minded agnosticism.

Ouch. There are no compelling reasons to believe in a god or gods. Atheism is
the rational response to this state of affairs. Agnosticism is for the weak.

~~~
kingmanaz
>what if the spirit of man is shaped by his technology

What if it isn't? Man no longer wars with trebuchets. Does that mean that the
nature of man has changed? Similarly, man will someday set aside personal
computers for something else. Does that mean that the nature of man will again
change? A man's tools are not his nature, rather, nature is known through
man's acts. Such acts are exampled in works such as Plutarch's lives or in the
Meditations of Aurelius and speak just as true today as when they were
written. Epictetus and the above cited wrote for the layman and require no
arbitrator to make them pertinent or safe for the present day.

Recognize that there materialistic and idealistic worldviews, and further,
that the the former is ubiquitous today. Try to see beyond the coloring of the
present. Man's stuff is not the stuff he's made of. Capiche?

>what if the spirit of man is shaped by his culture?

Then one would benefit by looking outside of the prejudices of the present
when reading for edification. Avoid marketing forces.

>There are no compelling reasons to believe in a god or gods. Atheism is the
rational response to this state of affairs. Agnosticism is for the weak.

Atheists are really just closed minded agnostics. They are believers every bit
as much as theists. Both are dogmatic.

Kant rationally discusses this in his Critique of Pure Reason. We have only
five senses and a handful of a priori concepts with which to understand the
world. All our knowledge is heaped up upon these principles of reasoning. In
other words, what we know is fundamentally limited by what is used to know
things. Objective certitude is far rarer than it is generally made out to be.

Beware of dogma, whether atheistic or theistic.

~~~
igravious
Atheism isn't dogma; whereas theism is. I will show you why.

We have both argued that we should approach this rationally. My reason tells
me that I have been given zero proof for the existence of any of the gods
described by theists. Kant himself (who you mention) discusses various proofs
and dismisses them. What we are left with is the puzzle of existence itself
and this feeling (that we all have) of wonder at the majesty and mystery of
the world. I am disinclined to attribute any of this to some supernatural
agent. Why should I? I see no reason to. Clearly I cannot rationally know
there is no god or gods but I as Douglas Adams pointed out I'm not going to
take some kind of wishy-washy hedge my bets stance on the matter. When talking
about the existence of some kind of objects that has the attributes that god
or the gods are claimed to have the burden of proof lies with those who assert
this agent's existence. Therefore I shall continue to believe in the non-
existence of a god or gods. Show me my dogma: I don't assert the existence of
anything without proof, I reject the proof claims of others and assert the
non-existence based on lack of evidence.

------
DanBC
BBC Radio 4 has a programme called "In Our Time". Many episodes of this
programme will be of interest to HN readers.

(<http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qykl>)

Epicurianism is going to be broadcast soon.
(<http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qf083>)

Here's a list of the philosophy programmes:
([http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/in-our-
time/archive/phi...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/in-our-
time/archive/philosophy))

And here's the episode for Stoicism:
(<http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p003k9fs>)

------
10dpd
Even shorter list: 1\. Plan your day. 2\. Execute on the plan 3\. Review and
score how it went.

~~~
solutionscbt
Hmm... Might be good advice. That's just the format or structure used to
explain the exercise minus any content, though: a beginning, middle, and end.
The actual content in my article is the practice of a form of mindfulness
based on the central precept of Stoicism. In other words, you've missed out
the "Stoic" part.

------
solutionscbt
On the same site as this article you can also complete a "Stoic Attitudes
Scale" that we've been developing in collaboration with a team of
psychologists and academics linked to the research on Stoicism at Exeter
University:

[http://philosophy-of-cbt.com/complete-online-survey-the-
stoi...](http://philosophy-of-cbt.com/complete-online-survey-the-stoic-
attitudes-scale/)

About 100 people have done it so far but at this stage we're just collecting
feedback on the concepts included for incorporation into a revised design. The
feedback has been that people have found it really interesting and useful,
though. Feel free to check it out, you can still complete it online.

Regards,

Donald Robertson

------
solutionscbt
I'm the author of the article. Someone else kindly posted it here. I just
noticed an awful lot of traffic suddenly coming from this link. So thought I'd
say thanks! Also, if anyone has any questions please let me know. Happy to
help. The article is just based on some research I'm doing for a book called
Teach yourself Stoicism, incidentally. You may also be interested in the
research on Stoicism that's been going on at the University of Exeter, with
which I've been helping a bit. This is their blog:

<http://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/stoicismtoday/>

Regards,

Donald Robertson

------
dkarl
Here's a very interesting article about Albert Ellis, one of the originators
of cognitive-behavioral therapy, who was directly influenced by Stoicism:
[http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/10/13/031013ta_talk_gr...](http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/10/13/031013ta_talk_green)

------
karunr
"Give me the wisdom the see the difference".

But sometimes people (Aaron Swartz comes to mind) find the courage to fight
and try and change things even when the odds of winning against large
companies or the government seem remote.

Sometimes humanity advances when certain individuals fight against the odds. I
wish I had their courage.

------
solutionscbt
You might also be interested in this online poll that's been running for a
while "Who's your favourite Stoic?" Over 400 responses so far and you can vote
or view the results, which are kind of interesting in their own right:

<http://poll.fm/3zsyo>

Regards,

Donald Robertson

------
umbrella
-Contemplation of Death: Contemplate your own death regularly, the deaths of loved ones and even the demise of the universe itself.

Mission Accomplished.

~~~
Evbn
Wait, the quoted text is considered advice? Ugh.

~~~
solutionscbt
No, it's not advice. It's an item from a bullet-point list of contemplative
exercises found in traditional Stoicism and other Socratic philosophies. The
meditation on death (melete thanatou) was mentioned by Socrates as an integral
part of his approach to philosophy, according to Plato and it's common to many
other philosophical and spiritual traditions, even Eastern approaches such as
Buddhism. You'd need to read the literature to understand the concept of the
exercise, although that doesn't necessarily mean you'd agree with it you won't
get a reasonable idea of what it's about just from that one sentence
description, and that's not what it's meant for anyway. Still not everyone's
cup of tea, though.

