
How Stoicism can help us - donjohnr
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/05/life-hacks-from-marcus-aurelius-how-stoicism-can-help-us
======
lordleft
One of my favorite passages from the Meditations is Marcus' observation that
Stoicism has value regardless of one's theology and metaphysics:

Either there is a fatal necessity and invincible order, or a kind Providence,
or a confusion without a purpose and without a director. If then there is an
invincible necessity, why do you resist? But if there is a Providence that
allows itself to be propitiated, make yourself worthy of the help of the
divinity. But if there is a confusion without a governor, be content that in
such a tempest you have yourself a certain ruling intelligence. (XII.14)

[https://howtobeastoic.wordpress.com/2016/01/02/gods-or-
atoms...](https://howtobeastoic.wordpress.com/2016/01/02/gods-or-atoms-marcus-
aurelius-says-it-doesnt-matter-i-agree/)

I have found Stoicism an ecumenical movement in part because of the above.

~~~
SebiH
I find Gregory Hay's translation much more readable, here's the same passage:

Fatal necessity, and inescapable order. Or benevolent Providence. Or
confusion—random and undirected. If it’s an inescapable necessity, why resist
it? If it’s Providence, and admits of being worshipped, then try to be worthy
of God’s aid. If it’s confusion and anarchy, then be grateful that on this
raging sea you have a mind to guide you. And if the storm should carry you
away, let it carry off flesh, breath and all the rest, but not the mind. Which
can’t be swept away.

~~~
ycombinete
I love seeing multiple translations of this great man's words. My translation
by, Martin Hammond:

"Either the compulsion of destiny and an order allowing no deviation, or a
providence open to prayer, or a random welter without direction. Now if
undeviating compulsion, why resist it? If providence admitting the placation
of prayer, make yourself worthy of divine assistance. If an ungoverned welter,
be glad that in such a maelstrom you have within yourself a directing mind of
your own: if the flood carries you a way, let it take your flesh, your breath,
all else - but it will not carry away your mind.

I particularly like Hammond's recurring use of the phrase "directing mind",
which is, to me, is very important to Stoicism.

------
codingslave
For anyone who wants an alternate view (by Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil,
Aphorism #9):

"Do you want to live "according to nature"? O you noble Stoics, what a verbal
swindle! Imagine a being like nature - extravagant without limit, indifferent
without limit, without purposes and consideration, without pity and justice,
simultaneously fruitful, desolate, and unknown - imagine this indifference
itself as a power - how could you live in accordance with this indifference?8
Living - isn't that precisely a will to be something different from what this
nature is? Isn't living appraising, preferring, being unjust, being limited,
wanting to be different? And if your imperative "live according to nature"
basically means what amounts to "live according to life"\- why can you not
just do that? Why make a principle out of what you yourselves are and must be?
The truth of the matter is quite different: while you pretend to be in
raptures as you read the canon of your law out of nature, you want something
which is the reverse of this, you weird actors and self-deceivers! Your pride
wants to prescribe to and incorporate into nature, this very nature, your
morality, your ideal. You demand that nature be "in accordance with the stoa
," and you'd like to make all existence merely living in accordance with your
own image of it - as a huge and eternal glorification and universalizing of
stoicism! With all your love of truth, you have forced yourselves for such a
long time and with such persistence and hypnotic rigidity to look at nature
falsely, that is, stoically, until you're no long capable of seeing nature as
anything else - and some abysmal arrogance finally inspires you with the
lunatic hope that, because you know how to tyrannize over yourselves -
Stoicism is self-tyranny - nature also allows herself to be tyrannized. Is the
Stoic then not a part of nature?.... But this is an ancient eternal story:
what happened then with the Stoics is still happening today, as soon as a
philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates a world in its own
image. It cannot do anything different. Philosophy is this tyrannical drive
itself, the spiritual will to power, to a "creation of the world," to the
causa prima [first cause]."

~~~
ssivark
At a quick glance, that passage seems to be almost deliberately obfuscating
the difference between living while accounting for nature (the uncontrollable
aspects) i.e. _in accordance with_ , versus, living _like_ nature.

~~~
0815test
No surprise there - the "living _like_ nature" part was the whole schtick of
Nietzsche's philosophy. More like an Epicurean with a healthy dose of Cynicism
than a Stoic, if we have to make that kind of basic comparison. He would
probably conflate Stoicism with the (nowadays prevalent and in many ways
successful) "English" approach to values, which he considered a reversal of
the "true" values that's driven by resentment, and a philosophical dead-end.

Though Nietzsche did also develop a highly refined statement of "living in
accordance with unchangeable nature" through his idea of _Amor fati_. The fact
that he acknowledged this principle so thoroughly despite opposing many other
parts of Stoicism must surely be of some significance.

~~~
HNLurker2
>Though Nietzsche did also develop a highly refined statement of "living in
accordance with unchangeable nature" through his idea of Amor fati.

He looked down on any philosophical idea that uplifts your soul like stoicism,
buddhism (deliberately making his work and ideas seem scary to them: happened
to me when I first got into his ideas) etc

~~~
codingslave
He discouraged philosophical frameworks because he believed that in the end
they limit human life. A truly well lived life, according to Nietzsche, is one
where the individual breaks free of indoctrination and dogma, and lives life
as they want. In the truest sense. This is Nietzsche's goal for humanity, so
he spends his time writing philosophy aimed at tearing down religion and
systems of moral control. Nietzsche wants to free humanity...

------
garrigou_lag
Stoicism was an intriguing topic for me in college, but I've since been more
drawn towards the works of St.Thomas Aquinas. It's interesting how St. Paul
encountered Stoics and Epicureans in Athens (Chapter 17:18+ of Acts). From
there, you have Dionysius who followed him and was an author of some
influential writings that shaped Christian thought (including Aquinas). It's
also interesting exploring Heraclitus' understanding of "Logos", which is very
important (and with differences in the Who and What) for both Christianity and
Stoicism.

~~~
afpx
I personally find the Meditations (of which I’m not a fan) to seem almost like
a Christian gospel with regard to its tone and teachings. It makes me think
that either Aurelius was influenced by Christianity, or Christianity
represented a belief system that was common in Rome at the time. From my
readings of the origins of Christianity, I understand that Jesus was just one
of many messianic type leaders with similar teachings that existed in the
Roman Empire at that time. So, makes me believe it’s more toward the latter.

~~~
jasonhansel
Christianity, especially in the first two centuries AD, was _very_ heavily
influenced by Stoic philosophy. (The Stoic influence declined somewhat after
Augustine defeated the Pelagian heresy.)

(For reference: Stoicism predated Christianity by around 300 years, and was
quite entrenched by the time the Gospels were written.)

~~~
afpx
And, both Christianity and Stoicism were influenced by Buddhism. (Buddhism was
practiced in both the Greek and Roman worlds, and scholars note many
similarities between the two.)

~~~
jasonhansel
This is dubious, but definitely not ridiculous. Buddhism was certainly known
in parts of the Greco-Roman world, but there are significant differences
between Buddhism and Stoicism, and there's no evidence of any direct
intellectual connection.

(Edit: one difference between the two is the Buddhist doctrine of "nonself",
which contrasts with the Stoic view of the self as a part of universal Reason
and a member of the kosmopolis.)

~~~
afpx
I am no expert; I only read a lot. But, my understanding is that early
Christianity was a reaction _away_ from Judaism. And, that the Old Testament
was only added as part of the canon later. In contrast to Judaism,
Christianity was must more similar to Buddhism with it’s hippy love message.
But, yes, I’m sure that’s very controversial.

~~~
dorcos
Early Christianity is the fulfillment of 1st Century Judaism with Jesus Christ
being revealed as the Messiah and King. Modern day Judaism, that is Rabbinic
Judaism (which followed some time after the destruction of the 2nd Temple)
denies Jesus as that expected Messiah and has an expectation of someone else
that is to come.

For Christians, The Old Testament and New Testament are very much coupled
together. There's a lot of prophecies and typologies you can read about from
the Old Testament that finds its fulfillment in Jesus and the New Testament
(such as the suffering Messiah).

I'd suggest C.S. Lewis' book "Mere Christianity" (who was good friends and
influenced to convert by J.R.R. Tolkien and G.K. Chesterton) to get a clearer
picture of Christianity without the sugar coating we commonly get from the
media today. Lewis brings up the Trilemma, which is unique only to the founder
of Christianity.

~~~
SomeOldThrow
It’s also worth explicitly noting that Christianity-as-a-Jewish movement and
Christianity-as-non-Judaism took a couple centuries to shake out. I would also
guess that, and there is decent evidence for, christianity at the time would
have looked much more similar to a communist movement (natural communism,
think potlucks, not marxism) than the religion we know today—it appears you
can thank Paul, in part, for that.

Also, if you’re looking to desugar Christianity with empathy, I recommend
Kierkegaard’s excellent _Fear and Trembling_. Lewis’s trilemma falls
uncomfortably close to Christianity-through-proof genre of literature—I
realize that’s not his intent, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I’ve
always found his _The Weight of Glory_ to be more compelling.

------
unixhero
I myself prefer transcendentalism. I need to be surrounded by more positive
emotions. I read this text, "Self-Reliance" by Ralph Waldo Emerson - modern
translation, at least at once a year:
[http://www.youmeworks.com/self_reliance_translated.html](http://www.youmeworks.com/self_reliance_translated.html)

Great discussion in this topic btw.

~~~
trevyn
Another thanks for this. Powerful stuff.

I looked up transcendentalism, and found this definition: “an idealistic
philosophical and social movement which developed in New England around 1836
in reaction to rationalism.”

I found this origin curious because Emerson’s ideas don’t seem to conflict
with rationalism; in fact, a transcendental mindset seems like an entirely
rational belief system to adopt if one wants to live well, and there are
interpretations that are entirely in line with scientific observation.

~~~
szemet
_Rationalism_ in philosphy means more than being rational: it is the belief
that you can deduce true knowledge about the world by mere thinking ("apriori
synthetic" knowledge).

Imagine you are Einstein, and you have derived relativity from a few axiom, if
you are still interested in experimental verification of your theory then you
are an empiricist. If you say: I know for sure I'm right no need for
experiments at all - you are a rationalist.

Modern science is mostly empiricist, maybe hardcore austrian economists are
rationalists (for them economy is derived from praxeology, experimental
verification is not possible and not needed)

------
bitexploder
Aurelius is the most approachable, but I find Epictetus more rewarding. Check
out A. A. Long on Epictetus to get more deeply into what Epictetus was all
about. Stoicism is like a missing manual for how to live a fulfilled life
regardless of your station.

~~~
ohaideredevs
I got nothing out of reading meditations after reading Aurelius' quotes. I
feel like the whole back can be summarized "Focus on what you can control,
don't stress over what you truly can't." Same with ALL of Buddhism.

~~~
mark_l_watson
I agree that the teachings from Stoicism and Buddhism seem simple but I have
some difficulty consistently putting them into practice in my daily life. I
read about one book a week and out the approximately 50 books a year I read,
at least 3 or 4 of those are on Stoicism or Buddhism. (The remainder of my
reading allowance is about equal parts of fiction and technology.)

While I am a devoted student of technology and I love learning new programming
languages and application domains, I find that I enjoy those "aha" moments
from Stoicism and especially from Buddhism. I consider myself very fortunate
to have enough time to pursue both tech and philosophy.

~~~
ohaideredevs
I used to get a lot of "aha" moments from books - fiction, non-fiction,
bigraphies, whatever. I almost never do anymore. I do feel like there is a
point where books become passive entertainment with few exceptions. That's how
I felt about Meditations by the time I read it - I knew every idea Aurelius
presented. I don't read nearly as much as I used to.

------
jasonhansel
> In your book, you also write about the importance of following your own
> values — and that Stoicism is a personal choice.

> therapists today are increasingly encouraging clients to identify their true
> inner values and do things that serve those more fully. The big problem here
> is that most people don’t know what those values are.

It's important to remember that the Stoics did _not_ encourage us to follow
our own individual, personal values, or to look for them as some sort of
"inner truth." Rather, they thought that value was objective, and that we
should give up our existing values in favor of the correct ones (the ones in
accordance with nature).

> It’s something they identify with at a deeper kind of more spiritual level,
> almost like a substitute for religion.

Well, it effectively _was_ a religion, based on a fairly developed system of
theology.

~~~
gnosticrose
Couldn't agree with you more. This "life hack" diluted and "self help" version
of Stoicism is horrendous.

~~~
AmericanChopper
What do horrendous about it? Adopting the stoic approach to tempering your
impulses, accepting that which is beyond your control, and seeking happiness
from within doesn’t sound horrendous to me at all. There’s plenty of wisdom in
Stoicism for people to benefit from.

~~~
gnosticrose
I love to read the historical stoics. But there is the good old traditional
Stoicism and this new "self-help" stoicism trend that isn't the same at all.

~~~
iiv
You didn't answer the question: what is so horrible about trying to help
oneself by tempering one's emotions and seeking happiness within?

~~~
0815test
It's not horrible, but it's not Stoicism either. The notion of eudaimonia
(which is what you talk about) is found throughout the schools of thought of
the Western classical world, and similar notions pop up all over the place in
ancient philosophy, even in such places as India or China. Calling _that_
"Stoicism" just leads to pointless misconceptions.

~~~
AmericanChopper
> The notion of eudaimonia (which is what you talk about)

That's not what's being talked about. Eudaimonia refers to the benefits of
living virtuously, a core part of Stoicism, but not the part that's directly
being discussed in this article. The ideas discussed in this article are about
self-control, disconnecting your emotional well-being from things that are
beyond your control, and seeking happiness from within. Those are
quintessential Stoic principles. A lot of the modern pop-stoicism also delves
into the benefits of virtue, maintaining the connection to eudaimonia and
Socrates' question, albeit in a slightly round about way. The only Stoic
principle that's usually left out of these discussions is pantheism.

> similar notions pop up all over the place in ancient philosophy

You're right, they do. That doesn't make them any less Stoic though. Perhaps
if this was a Chinese message board, we'd all be talking about Buddhism
instead. The two philosophies do have a lot in common.

------
mymythisisthis
Stoicism only became popular in Greek philosophy after they lost to Alexander
the Great. It was not the glorious philosophy of Socrates, Plato and
Aristotle, that talked about what a society should do. Stoicism only talked
about how to cope.

~~~
dgellow
> Stoicism only talked about how to cope.

I may be reading your comment incorrectly but when you say “[they] __only
__became popular”, “[they] __only __talked about [...]” that sounds a bit
pejorative. Isn’t it as important to talk about how to cope with a situation
than what an ideal society should do? To me they both seem to be things to
talk about, one isn’t more important than the other. To be honest I’m not
familiar enough to know if that’s something we got from stoicism but that
seems to be a great addition to our thinking toolkit.

------
gallerdude
I think there’s a fundamental human drive to regret - evolutionarily, it makes
sense that we’d be optimized to know _exactly how we would do better in a bad
situation we recently faced_.

But in the modern world, this isn’t a matter or life or death, and it affects
our mental health significantly. I always think of Stoicism as a sort of patch
to override this bug - the you can’t change what you can’t change, whatever
happens, happens.

~~~
Doubl
I like this way of thinking about things. Another one I heard recently is that
whatever you do you'll regret it. Get married, you'll regret it, don't get
married, the same, etc. So regret is a constant, which is comforting in its
way

------
wavefunction
I enjoy studying and considering stoicism but I have to think statements like
>one of the biggest groups of people interested in it seems to be millennials
who work in the tech industry

and considering a simplified description of stoicism

>the endurance of pain or hardship without the display of feelings and without
complaint.

To be an indictment of our industry. We're not coal-miners. We're not picking
out in the fields or roofing in the hot sun. Cafeterias and RSUs aren't
hardships.

~~~
im3w1l
A rich person will by definition not be struggling financially but there are a
lots of other problems a person can have. Maybe their wife divorced them,
maybe their father just passed away, maybe their kid has a severe learning
disability, maybe they are involved in a protracted court battle over the
rights to a book they wrote.

Point is that there are so many problems people can have, and you wont notice
unless you know the person well.

~~~
asark
Seneca called out _fear of losing one 's wealth_ as a particular affliction of
the rich, and prescribed a day, every so often, of living as a beggar to
remind oneself that life goes on even in those circumstances.

------
pewpewpew777
Marcus Aurelius is responsible for raising and empowering his son Commodus -
the emperor depicted in the movie Gladiator.

It's useful to keep this in mind when reading his meditations. Yes, the
message can be nice and joyful to read. Yet the man who wrote them created a
tyrant and contributed to untold suffering.

~~~
darkpuma
Consider the existence of good people with bad parents. Should those bad
parents be credited with the success of their children? It seems perverse to
assume parents deserve full 'credit' in either scenario. There are many things
other than parents that may influence that child's direction for better or
worse.

~~~
reitzensteinm
Raising a bad child is one thing, but handing them the keys to the kingdom is
another.

It's not enough to dismiss the philosophy, but parent comment is absolutely
correct that you should keep it in mind as historical context.

~~~
AmericanChopper
If historical context is important, then you might want to mention that Rome
was a hereditary empire. The 5 good emperors were all adopted by emperors who
had no sons. In the historical context of Rome, Marcus didn’t hand Commodus
anything, or empower him to become emperor. He rightfully inherited the
position.

~~~
reitzensteinm
At the time of Aurelius, I'm not so sure that's an accurate description. The
only non-adopted sons given power from Julius through Marcus were those of
Vespasian (though a lot of adoptions were of extended family members).

Of course, to not hand power to Commodus would have meant his death. I'm not
judging him for his decision, but given his absolute power and obvious clarity
of thought, it was a conscious decision to choose his son's life over the good
of the empire.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_emperors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_emperors)

~~~
AmericanChopper
> it was a conscious decision to choose his son's life over the good of the
> empire.

The generally contrived nature of this argument aside, this is really just
revisionism. Commodus was 18 when Aurelius died, and he didn't become a
lunatic until a fair bit after his fathers death. If you're looking for flaws
in Marcus Aurelius (there's plenty), this isn't one of them.

~~~
reitzensteinm
Commodus did plenty as a child, even if it was overshadowed by later lunacy.
My argument was poorly made though. I'll try to restate:

It's easy to get swept up in Meditations, viewing Marcus as the stoic
Philosopher King that has profound lessons for us even today.

Parent tried to remind everyone about Commodus, and in my opinion correctly
so; if Marcus lived up to the myth surrounding him, he'd have intuited the
situation and dealt with it.

But he either didn't see what was coming, or decided to do nothing. Because
for all the hype, he was just a man. Keeping this in mind is an antidote to
getting carried away by what is a genuinely compelling piece of writing.

I wouldn't make this argument in a vacuum, but I saw OP get downvoted and
wanted to jump in because I thought it was a fair enough point.

~~~
AmericanChopper
So if he was as great as people say he was, then he would have intuited the
fact that his son would eventually turn out to be a bad emperor, and would
have murdered him? Hmmm...

~~~
reitzensteinm
Yes, that is my argument.

~~~
AmericanChopper
I don't think most people would consider inability to predict events that will
occur after your death, and the act of not committing filicide to be very
serious character shortcomings.

Commodus renounced Stoicism after his fathers death, and didn't do any of the
terrible things he was known for until after then either.

This argument is beyond weak in terms of criticising Stoicism or Marcus.

~~~
reitzensteinm
There's a big difference between using Commodus as proof of Marcus' flaws, and
using him as proof that Marcus was only human.

If the argument were that weak, you wouldn't bother with the strawman to
counter it.

------
unixhero
I would rather recommend reading this book about what Stoisiscm is and how to
apply it; by Stockdale.

[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/31201.Thoughts_of_a_Phil...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/31201.Thoughts_of_a_Philosophical_Fighter_Pilot)

[https://www.amazon.com/Thoughts-Philosophical-Fighter-
Pilot-...](https://www.amazon.com/Thoughts-Philosophical-Fighter-Pilot-
Reprint/dp/0817993924)

First part:
[https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.usna.edu/Ethics/_files/documents/stoicism1.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi7jN3upsriAhVKtIsKHaxvAVcQFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw1qeQ6iExCthZtJYaGcutZm&cshid=1559461622318)

------
rramadass
FYI; The allegorical tale in the "Tablet of Cebes" is also worth reading and
pondering over. A good translation can be found in Keith Seddon's "Epictetus'
Handbook and the Tablet of Cebes: Guides to Stoic Living".

------
chess93
What is everyone’s favorite translation of Meditations? I bought a cheap copy
and the translation is unsurprisingly hard to read and distracts from the
text’s content.

~~~
0xADEADBEE
Tangentially related: it's a pity there aren't more websites like this one:
[0]

It's nice to compare different translations in-line. The last line of section
3 is an excellent example of how different translations can be: [1]

Enchiridion is well worth a read (I gather Carter has the best translation but
I've gleaned this from places like Reddit so pinch of salt!), and I also
enjoyed Derren Brown's Happy [0] which draws heavily on stoicism, summarising
a lot of famous works on it as he goes.

[0] -
[https://enchiridion.tasuki.org/display:Code:ec,twh,pem,sw/se...](https://enchiridion.tasuki.org/display:Code:ec,twh,pem,sw/section:1)
[1] -
[https://enchiridion.tasuki.org/display:Code:ec,twh,pem,sw/se...](https://enchiridion.tasuki.org/display:Code:ec,twh,pem,sw/section:3)
[2] -
[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30142270-happy](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30142270-happy)

~~~
tasuki
Hey that's my website! Happy you like it :)

~~~
0xADEADBEE
That's amazing! Thank you so much for making it!

------
forgottenpass
>one of the biggest groups of people interested in it seems to be millennials
who work in the tech industry

I'm not surprised after reflecting for a moment. Stoicism seems like a
reasonable answer for people who want to escape the sentimentalism packaged as
life skills that's so popular at the moment.

------
azanashfaq
That's nice and awsome.

------
sridca
How is Stoicism different to everyday psychological dissociation covered up
with a nice-sounding philosophy?

------
sametmax
The problem with stoicism, is that it's providing you with a lot of concepts,
and zero way to apply them.

It's like saying "to win the race, run faster". Doh.

~~~
lm28469
Have you read Seneca's letters? I can't think of anything more straightforward
and applicable.

Live simply, don't value external things, have principles and stand behind
them, think in term of "long term happiness" not "short term joys", be nice to
your fellow humans, being rich in material things is nice but not sufficient
while having virtues, knowledge and a strong community is necessary. It really
isn't rocket science, especially compared to other/newer philosophical
movements.

It's life, no one is going to hold your hand and lead you to your happy place.
Educate yourself, read the masters, follow the ones that seems aligned to your
beliefs and move on if you find something better.

I really like these:

[https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_letters_to_Lucilius/L...](https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_letters_to_Lucilius/Letter_1)

[https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_letters_to_Lucilius/L...](https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_letters_to_Lucilius/Letter_22)

[https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_letters_to_Lucilius/L...](https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_letters_to_Lucilius/Letter_28)

[https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_letters_to_Lucilius/L...](https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_letters_to_Lucilius/Letter_96)

~~~
sametmax
Of course I did. I even tried to follow some things to the extreme. E.G: one
letter advice to have "poverty days" so that you never get afraid of being
poor. So I went to sleep in the street from time to time.

But most of the content is not that straight forward. Take for example:

"Therefore, Lucilius, do as you write me that you are doing: hold every hour
in your grasp. Lay hold of to-day's task, and you will not need to depend so
much upon to-morrow'"

Yeah. How do you do that ?

It's nice to say "carpe diem" or "focus on what's important". "Do the hard
things first" and all that.

You can also tell a fat guy to eat less calories. Great. Now what ?

That's why I prefer philosophy when it comes with a method.

Meditation. Wim Hof method. Intermittent fasting. Psilocybin retreat.
Whatever. But something to actually help you apply a thereory that otherwise
get completely uncorrelated from one's life.

~~~
lm28469
Well these advices are thousands of years old so obviously you can't take it
as a step by step guide for the 21st century. The principles behind them are
usually simple to understand but hard to practice if you don't self reflect
and actively try to better your life.

> Yeah. How do you do that ?

Look at your life, everyone is wasting time, maybe you're fine with it or
maybe you feel like shit every evening when you look back at your day and
notice that you could have done much more / spend your time doing something
better.

Want to start a business but watch 3 hours of netflix a day ? Maybe something
is wrong. Spend all your life in a job you don't like because it pays well ?
Are you sure you value money that much ? Are you always thinking about the
next weekend, vacations, retirement to rationalise doing tasks you don't value
?

Imagine being 60 and looking back at your life, did these X000 hours/year of
netflix / video games / whatever bettered my life ? Or did they made my shitty
life slightly more tolerable by occupying my mind outside of work ? Did I have
a plan or did I just went through whatever life through at me without thinking
about it?

> You can also tell a fat guy to eat less calories. Great. Now what ?

Telling him is not enough, it has to come from the fat guy himself. Once he
truly want to lose weight he'll find a way (unless he has some medical
conditions preventing it). It's the same with life, you can read every single
book about how to be happy and successful, if you don't truly want it and
invest serious time and efforts in it it's not much better than reading
fiction.

> That's why I prefer philosophy when it comes with a method.

That's all good too, but I wouldn't be surprised if you eventually feel the
urge to take your life in your own hands and follow less strict regimen at
some point. Meditation or psychedelic drugs are a good example, at first you
want a very safe and guided thing and once you kind of know what you're doing
you experiment. You can spend 10k to spend a week in a monastery or on top of
a mountain in underwear, if you come back and fall in the same patterns as
before you just blew 10k for vacations.

> that otherwise get completely uncorrelated from one's life.

Or maybe our current way of living is so convoluted and disconnected from our
origins that we lost the ability to understand the most basic principles.

------
whatamidoingyo
>donjohnr

There's no way Donald Robertson is on Hackernews?!

Edit: I guess it is. Just really surprised you even know what HN is. Never
thought you'd be here posting articles.

