
How to Be a Stoic - Tomte
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/12/19/how-to-be-a-stoic
======
osti
You desire to LIVE "according to Nature"? Oh, you noble Stoics, what fraud of
words! Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant,
boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or
justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves
INDIFFERENCE as a power--how COULD you live in accordance with such
indifference? To live--is not that just endeavoring to be otherwise than this
Nature? Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited,
endeavouring to be different? And granted that your imperative, "living
according to Nature," means actually the same as "living according to
life"\--how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of
what you yourselves are, and must be? In reality, however, it is quite
otherwise with you: while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your
law in Nature, you want something quite the contrary, you extraordinary stage-
players and self-deluders! In your pride you wish to dictate your morals and
ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you
insist that it shall be Nature "according to the Stoa," and would like
everything to be made after your own image, as a vast, eternal glorification
and generalism of Stoicism! With all your love for truth, you have forced
yourselves so long, so persistently, and with such hypnotic rigidity to see
Nature FALSELY, that is to say, Stoically, that you are no longer able to see
it otherwise-- and to crown all, some unfathomable superciliousness gives you
the Bedlamite hope that BECAUSE you are able to tyrannize over yourselves--
Stoicism is self-tyranny--Nature will also allow herself to be tyrannized
over: is not the Stoic a PART of Nature? . . . But this is an old and
everlasting story: what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens
today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always
creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this
tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual Will to Power, the will to
"creation of the world," the will to the causa prima.

-Nietzsche

~~~
1_player
Thanks for this, osti.

As a stoicism fanboy I partly agree, and if it wasn't pouring outside I'd run
to my local bookshop to get something from this Nietzsche fella. Any
suggestion?

~~~
CuriouslyC
Beyond Good and Evil is probably his most important work, but Thus Spoke
Zarathustra is more readable.

~~~
wry_discontent
Don't start with Thus Spoke Zarathustra. It's all parables told in an old
testament style that's hard to comprehend without already knowing what
Nietzsche is about. I read The Gay Science first, and I thought it was a good
starting point. It covers his big ideas and has the famous "God is dead"
aphorism in it.

~~~
CuriouslyC
I agree that his philosophy isn't super clear from Thus Spoke Zarathustra, but
the parable-esque story style is what makes it easy to read. I suppose for
clarity we should separate reading and understanding.

------
mmmBacon
I have embraced certain aspects of stoic philosophy in my life. In particular
I've found _The Meditations_ by Marcus Aurelius to be helpful and practical. I
struggle with my temper and in the last few years my temper has affected my
career growth. These stoic works have helped my get a better grip on things
when dealing with especially difficult people. I'm not a person who reads self
help books nor am I into cheesy or trendy philosophies. I usually roll my eyes
at this stuff. But I have found a framework in stoicism that has helped me
overcome some of my limitations and helped me achieve some of my goals.

~~~
specialist
I too had an anger management problem. I didn't like who I was or how I
behaved. I tried every thing, every book, every bit of advice. Most of it
terrible. Failure.

Part 1:

I eventually found quality help, who then recommended I read this:

When Anger Hurts

[http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/278196.When_Anger_Hurts](http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/278196.When_Anger_Hurts)

TL;DR: Anger is a cascade: Expectations, disappointment, resentment, blame and
then BOOM anger. The fix to anger is to eliminate your expectations.

Part 2:

Awareness of the psychology only got me so far. I struggled to change my
habits. Recalling that you can only replace a habit, vs unlearn, I decided to
pretend to be happy. I would tell people "I'm fantastic! How are you?!" It
started out sarcastic, wry.

About three years later, I woke up one day, thought "I feel phenomenal" and
actually meant it. I was shocked. I didn't even notice the change.

TL;DR: How you talk changes how you think.

Good luck. Please believe me when I say the effort is worthwhile.

~~~
desipenguin
> The fix to anger is to eliminate your expectations.

As Buddha said "Expectations lead to disappointment"

------
FabHK
Here some great contemporary introductions to Stoicism:

1\. William B. Irvine, "A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic
Joy", [https://www.amazon.com/Guide-Good-Life-Ancient-
Stoic/dp/0195...](https://www.amazon.com/Guide-Good-Life-Ancient-
Stoic/dp/0195374614)

This is an introduction to Stoic thought as it applies today by a professor in
philosophy, very clearly written. Great for first exposure. It (sensibly)
skips some of the more arcane stuff, such as Stoic metaphysics (historically
relevant, but really obsolete).

2\. Donald Robertson, "Stoicism and the Art of Happiness",
[https://www.amazon.com/Stoicism-Art-Happiness-Teach-
Yourself...](https://www.amazon.com/Stoicism-Art-Happiness-Teach-
Yourself/dp/1444187104/)

This is a touch more academic and historic on one hand, and very practical and
text-book-like on the other hand, in that it has self-assessments, key points,
exercises for every section. Excellent second book. The author also has a
course, blog and FAQ at
[http://donaldrobertson.name](http://donaldrobertson.name)

3\. Epictetus' Enchiridion is available on Project Gutenberg, btw. It's very
short, and many things are not really relevant today anymore, yet surprisingly
many sections still "speak to us".

4\. Note also that Tom Wolfe's huge novel "A Man in Full" is suffused with
Stoic themes.

I find Stoicism quite wise, and still substantial enough when you subtract all
the obsolete superstition (which cannot be said of, for example, Abrahamic
religions). Certainly good for tranquility and empathy. Sometimes hard to
translate into positive action, though, I find.

~~~
skrebbel
> _(which cannot be said of, for example, Abrahamic religions)_

Interesting thought! I'd say that "love thy neighbour" is a pretty substantial
idea, albeit a "bit" less deep than the average stoic philosophy.

Did anyone try this? Take a religion like Christianity (or one interpretation
of it) and remove all the deities and miracles? As an avid Christian who
dislikes dogma even more than militant atheists, I'd love to dive into an
attempt at this.

~~~
jungturk
Something akin to the Jefferson bible?

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

~~~
FabHK
That's awesome, didn't know about it.

Full text available online, about 20 printed pages.

Edited to add:

Here you can read it, facsimile of the original cut-and-paste (literally...)
version by Jefferson. 84 pages, because it's in Greek, Latin, French and
English. Love it.

[http://americanhistory.si.edu/jeffersonbible/](http://americanhistory.si.edu/jeffersonbible/)

Here's an ePub, if you want to put it on your ebook reader (note: possibly
unsavoury site):

[http://bookfi.net/book/1865049](http://bookfi.net/book/1865049)

------
hartator
I can't recommend enough "A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic
Joy" by Irvine, William B.

I am 2/3 into it, maybe one of the best philosophy book I've ever read.

~~~
ishanr
Also read Happy by Derren Brown. It's brilliant in a very different way.

~~~
hartator
Funny & weird, I am also a big fan of Derren Brown shows, didn't know about
his books. Going to buy it on Amazon right now.

~~~
jazzdev
Looks like the Derren Brown who wrote the 1964 book is not the same Derren
Brown who is the 21st century magician.

~~~
hartator
I am actually not sure what to think. If you look at Amazon, it does say 1964,
but list Derren Brown - the magician - as the author and even give his
biography. The confusion grows even deeper as one of the reviewer is referring
as Derren Brown - the magician - as the author as well.

[edit] Amazon US got the date wrong. Amazon UK is giving the publication date,
2016, right. Derren Brown - the magician and mentalist - is still also a
stoic. :D

------
Mendenhall
Saw a few remarks about the "bleakness" or "uncaring" of the "universe".

That view of the universe is in error, people are part of the universe and
they certainly care. To view the universe without humanity is to not view the
universe.

There is bleakness in the universe for sure, but there is also compassion and
caring.

~~~
derrickdirge
This is worth giving a second thought.

It's practically (literally?) instinctual to feel like the universe is
happening _to_ you rather than _with_ you.

~~~
warent
It's true. Alan Watts isn't necessarily the best, but I always like his
(paraphrased) quote "Like the water waves and flowers bloom, the Universe
peoples."

------
jwdunne
What is perhaps most interesting about stoicism is how it influenced cognitive
therapy and CBT in a big way. These forms of therapy, along with derivatives
that integrate practical ideas from Buddhism such as DBT and radical
acceptance therapy, have been seen to perform as well as medication and in
some cases providing longer term improvements.

I think both the stoics and Buddhism were definitely on to something.

~~~
FabHK
Agreed, and in both cases, when you strip away the obsolete superstitions that
accompany it (just by virtue of the world view at the time they emerged), then
there is still a lot of original wisdom and substance left.

~~~
jwdunne
I think the same is true for Christianity too. The golden rule is an excellent
way to be an awesome human being. I think that's a better motive than a good
afterlife.

I haven't studied other religions to much but I am dead sure there are
timeless pieces of advice.

My opinion, and I stress opinion, is that much of the world's religions
offered a way of life that attempted to reduce violence, illness and
suffering.

Even kosher and halal, thinking about it, could have been a recognition that
these foods can lead to death, especially in a time when germ theory and
proper cooking and hygiene methods were not developed. Since disease was
associated with evil, it makes sense that "God declares these unclean".

Plus, what would you speculate if you didn't have the knowledge of how the
universe, the planets and life, including us, developed? In that case, a
creator provides the fewest assumptions.

~~~
FabHK
Thanks for the thoughtful and respectful comments, I hope my answer manages to
stay in that spirit, too.

> I think the same is true for Christianity too

Disagree, concerning the Abrahamic religions, as what is good is rarely
original, and what is original is rarely good:

1\. What is good (golden rule, some of the 10 commandments) is not very
original. The golden rule has appeared in ancient Greece (Thales), China
(Confucius), etc. half a millennium before Christianity, and other places
independently. By contrast, Stoa and Buddhism were, I'd venture, among the
first to arrive at and codify certain substantial insights that constitute
large parts of their teachings.

2\. What is original is mostly fairly absurd, if looked at dispassionately. If
you strip Christianity of the superstitions, its essence is basically gone.

Just as a small example: it is still current position of the Catholic Church
that the eucharist is actual transformation in substance of wine and bread
into actual blood and flesh of Christ. (There was a (possibly apocryphal) case
in Germany of a vegetarian asking whether he could participate in the
communion, and he was told that he could not as a vegetarian, because it IS
flesh.) If you erroneously believe that it's purely symbolic, you'd be subject
to the punishment of anathema (which is worse than excommunication), if the
Church were consistent with its teachings.

> religions offered a way of life that attempted to reduce violence, illness
> and suffering.

Yes, at the time. But not today.

> what would you speculate if you didn't have the knowledge of how the
> universe, the planets and life, including us, developed? In that case, a
> creator provides the fewest assumptions.

Yes, at the time. But not today.

In that sense, Stoa and Buddhism have aged better than the Abrahamic
religions, maybe because they were more empiric.

~~~
jwdunne
With regards to one, just because it was not original does not discount its
value. That only supports my point that it was an attempt to present a way to
live - a failed attempt given hindsight. I never said it was original nor
entirely good. That's why we can both recognise the good parts as generally
good advice.

2\. I'm not preaching. I was brought up Catholic and learned enough to reject
it. Catholicism and the actions of that church and other splinters are
fundamentally at odds with what Jesus actually preached - love your neighbour.
Somehow, it was ok to burn your neighbour alive if they did not believe Jesus
was God, which the rule did not mention. I am not a Catholic today - there is
too much hypocrisy. My assertion was that these, regardless of what we know
now, were misguided hypotheses that had mixtures of valuable advice along with
ideas that we now know are wrong. The structure built on top of that is
perhaps a hypothesis taken too seriously. My thinking is that what originally
was the equivalent of Aristotle to some Newton was misunderstood and taken to
the extreme. I share your sentiments exactly.

> Yes, at the time. But not today

This was exactly my point. Your English is very good, by the way. If I didn't
know better, I'd mistake your German directness as rude and blunt.

I would agree. Perhaps not empiric but more practical which lends itself
better to empirical study.

~~~
FabHK
> I never said it was original nor entirely good.

True, you didn't, I had said it ("... there is still a lot of original wisdom
and substance left"), to which you replied, that's why I focused in on it.

> I'm not preaching.

Fair enough, I try not to... :-)

> If I didn't know better, I'd mistake your German directness as rude and
> blunt.

Nailed it, thanks for the benefit of the doubt. Edited to add: This (mostly)
works on HN, but lamentably not many other sites...

~~~
jwdunne
Wow, you're right. Sorry about that. Yeah, clearly not original. I do agree.

I'm British - I will apologise if you bump into me.

------
s_kilk
[Shameless plug] You can read Marcus Aurelius "Meditations" at
[http://directingmind.com](http://directingmind.com)

~~~
dominotw
Can you say couple of lines why someone should read this ?

~~~
trgn
I'll take a stab.

It is a very accessible work, still today. The writing is clear and simple.

It's always been a popular work across the centuries, but the form seems to
work well for contemporary audiences. You can engage with at different levels,
it doesn't require a deep commitment. You can read a few passages before bed
time, leave it for years and pick it up again, leaf through it and skip
back&forth. As you grow older, the depth of the work reveals itself.

Specifically, given the easy to digest form, Meditations is somewhat of a
board room coffee table book, like Machiavelli or Sun Tzu. There is a lot in
there about what it takes to be a good leader.

It is a primary work. As a reader, you will take a trip back in time, when
people were, for lack of better word, different. The deep religiosity on
display can come across as somewhat alien, especially since it is one that
focuses on the importance of the observance of rites rather than on
establishing a personal spiritual connection. It is very un-american, un-
christian, and that journey is valuable in itself.

The breadth is wide. Stoicism is easily dismissed as being somewhat of a dour,
pessimistic philosophy. There is undoubtedly a melancholy undercurrent in
Meditations, but it is also full with love, joy, kindness, happiness. The
opening sets the tone. A thoughtful thank you note to all the people who
Marcus feels affectionate to. Near the end, after being reminded a great deal
about your mortality, those bright colors will have lost their luster
somewhat, but Meditationes leaves you with more confidence in humanity and
love towards your fellow man than with less.

Marcus Aurelius was by all accounts an admirable man and an important
historical figure. There is somewhat of a voyeuristic kick you get by reading
something he never intended to publish. Especially when writing about his
wife, his insecurities, his unpleasant views on sex, all are more personal
passages than philosophical. It's been 2000 years, I'm sure we're forgiven.

------
Arun2009
> Albert Ellis came up with an early form of cognitive-behavioral therapy,
> based largely on Epictetus’ claim that “it is not events that disturb
> people, it is their judgments concerning them.”

This actually is presented in Buddhism too, which was where I first
encountered it before re-discovering similar principles in stoicism and
Ellis's Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy. See this sutta:
[http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.tha...](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.than.html)

Quote:

"When touched with a feeling of pain, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person
sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats his breast, becomes distraught. So he feels
two pains, physical & mental. Just as if they were to shoot a man with an
arrow and, right afterward, were to shoot him with another one, so that he
would feel the pains of two arrows; in the same way, when touched with a
feeling of pain, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person sorrows, grieves, &
laments, beats his breast, becomes distraught. So he feels two pains, physical
& mental."

But what is nice about Buddhism is that there is a practical skill-training
that comes along with the theory. When disagreeable events happen to you,
mindfulness training teaches you not to grasp on to the events automatically
and start your own narrative about it, but instead, observe them mindfully.
This gives you the opportunity to skillfully deal with the situation. REBT in
addition implores you to consider the situation rationally.

These are troubling times (especially where I live in India), and I think a
little bit of stoic + Buddhist teachings can go a long way in maintaining our
composure even as we engage with the world. I still struggle with this from
time to time, but I would have been completely lost without these teachings.

~~~
anantzoid
Which particular troubling event related to India are you referring to?

~~~
Arun2009
Not events, but several trends and crises. Two that personally concern me are
the looming water crisis and pollution: I would love to have more water
security and be able to breathe cleaner air. I can put up with the haphazard
electric supply and the abysmal transport infrastructure. I don't have to
bother about such fancy things like the substandard educational system or the
endemic criminalization of politics.

But perhaps above all, (a) the dysfunctional governance system that is
incapable of doing anything about any of this, and (b) the gradual descent of
the society into a more regressive state.

------
factsaresacred
‘For such a small price, I buy tranquillity.’ Beautifully put.

The Penguin edition of fellow stoic Marcus Aurelius' Meditations is free on
Amazon kindle: [https://www.amazon.com/Meditations-Marcus-Aurelius-
Wisehouse...](https://www.amazon.com/Meditations-Marcus-Aurelius-Wisehouse-
Classics-ebook/dp/B0192TVZ3A)

~~~
karyon
Actually, that quote was the one sentence I didn't understand. Who's spilling
the wine? And why does that buy tranquility? If you could help me that would
be great :)

~~~
gattilorenz
I read it as "instead of getting angry for losing a 20$ note, consider it the
price you pay for tranquility".

Which maybe works for yourself, but most of my significant others of the past
would just start complaining that I lost a 20$ bill.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
I prefer to consider the joy of finding money; when you lose it you've almost
certainly given someone else that joy.

~~~
jschwartzi
Just like when things get stolen from my car, they're inevitably things that
the thief might have needed more than me.

------
manmal
One interesting thing I've noticed is that ancient Stoics have not rebuked the
concept of god (or "the universe"), a higher power that determines all the
things that are not in our control (as a Stoic you very much need to
distinguish between things in and outside of your control). I have found it
difficult to really, deeply, accept things as out of my control without
resorting to some concept of god or "the universe as a well-meaning entity".

Is there someone among you HNers who has retained a positive outlook by
believing that the universe is a bleak, chaotic place with no intrinsic
meaning to the things happening in it?

~~~
olavk
Bone cancer in children - if there exist an almighty sentient God, then he is
erratic and malicious. The polytheistic concept of gods is actually more
realistic (better explains reality) in that there are multiple gods with
different agendas and morals acting.

In polytheism the universe is not chaotic and meaningless - things to not
happen at random, but because the gods willed it. But the gods does not always
act for the benefit of humans, so the universe is not "fair".

If something bad happens to you, is it really a consolation that it is because
an allknowing and just God _wants_ you to suffer?

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Your first statement is a pretty classic and naive position. For me at 8 years
or so I rendered the objection of "pain" in terms of volcanoes.

The standard, and again naive, rejoinder in mainstream Christian theology is
that God had a pattern for the World that didn't include such types of pain
and destruction but that man chose not to follow God's plan (as allegorised in
"The Fall" in Genesis). Thus we chose to go it alone, and you can read the
various theories on how that has a Universal effect too.

To raise the basic Argument from Suffering you really should look past the
first-tier argument and present it anticipating The Fall.

In my limited understanding suffering appears out of the axioms of free will.
To make us human, with the ability to choose to love, choose to care, choose
to follow God or not, we require free-will. Otherwise it's just "echo 'i love
you'" rather than a genuine emotion.

Your question should be "is it better not to create our Universe, with the
possibility for love, if there is also a possibility of suffering". You may
come to the same conclusion, that a benevolent being shouldn't turn Creator
when faced with those possibilities ... but then if they hadn't you wouldn't
be here to make the objection.

tl;dr "The Fall" and "free will" are the standard, Biblical, Christian
counter-arguments that stand against Suffering and allow for a loving,
benevolent God to be creator of a Universe such as ours.

~~~
olavk
So God inflicted leprocy on humanity because otherwise we wouldn't be able to
feel genuine love? And not buying this makes you "naive"?

~~~
pbhjpbhj
I perhaps haven't expressed the position well however, "naive" isn't a slur,
read "simplistic" if it helps, it's philosophy on the level of someone who has
not demonstrated cognisance of the basic sources and hasn't addressed the
obvious counter-arguments.

The mainstream Christian theology is that leprosy, and such diseases came in
to the world after, and as a consequence of, The Fall. That if we'd chosen
God's way we wouldn't have such things.

>So God inflicted leprocy on humanity //

God created a Universe with free will for man rather than creating a fancy
automaton. Mankind chose not to follow God's precepts, the consequences being
that disease, pain and suffering entered the world.

It's like if I serve you a hot drink. You can choose to cause pain and
suffering with it - throw it at someone, say - or you can follow my
instructions to sip it slowly, let it cool and enjoy it, share it. I can't
serve you a hot drink without the possibility that you will abuse it, unless I
make you into a "hot drink robot" with no free will.

You could couch that as God inflicting the possibility of suffering in order
to allow the possibility of beauty, love, passion, humanity.

~~~
olavk
Then I sure you are also well aware of the counterarguments against this form
of theodicy.

------
vram22
I had read a book by Epictetus some years ago. Liked it. Forget the book name
now. It was about living simply, not getting overly affected (mentally or
emotionally) by circumstances or things that happen to you, and a lot more
stuff along those lines, and other things too.

Basically Stoicism, I suppose, though I've not looked up the term in detail.

I also like this quote by him which I read long ago:

"Practice yourself, for heaven's sake, in little things, and thence proceed to
greater."

[http://philosiblog.com/2013/06/06/practice-yourself-for-
heav...](http://philosiblog.com/2013/06/06/practice-yourself-for-heavens-sake-
in-little-things-and-then-proceed-to-greater/)

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

[https://dailystoic.com/epictetus/](https://dailystoic.com/epictetus/)

The Stockdale Paradox is also interesting. Stockdale was influenced by
Epictetus.

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

~~~
golem14
Not about stoicism, but you might also enjoy

"The Tao is Silent" by Raymond Smullyan

~~~
vram22
Thanks, will check that out.

------
gfiorav
Well, it turns out I've been a stoic all this time, I'm finding out.

It blows me away how that part about taking every problem as a chance to learn
and become a better "wrestler" fits right in with my natural conclusions. The
rest of it describes me adequately also.

I'm reading Epictetus now, thanks for sharing.

~~~
Havoc
>turns out I've been a stoic all this time, I'm finding out.

It seems to come naturally to some, especially those that tend to adopt a
somewhat cold analytical view of the world

~~~
firepoet
You might have dropped the word "cold" and been a bit more inclusive.

~~~
Havoc
Fair enough. It was meant to convey reasoning devoid of emotion...wasn't aimed
at a negative judgement.

I consider myself one of those people so def didn't intend to offend.

------
Pamar
Allow me to share my collection of links to Stoicism resources (which I will
soon update with this)

[http://www.pa-mar.net/Main/Lifestyle/Stoicism.html](http://www.pa-
mar.net/Main/Lifestyle/Stoicism.html)

------
RivieraKid
What's up with all those submissions about stoicism on HN, is that some new SV
fad?

~~~
clydethefrog
Stoicism gives you the mental ability to deal with evil, futility and failure,
since it makes you believe you are a non-entity in an inflexible, vast and
nasty social structure.

It's a philosophy of inaction and accommodation to injustice and oppression.
There is a reason it became popular for Roman soldiers under the Empire. Well,
at least stoicism does not claim that you are changing the world for the
better by creating all these data slurping algorithms. But I wish SV would
embrace the Hellenistic philosophy of Cynicism instead.

~~~
ceras
> It's a philosophy of inaction and accommodation to injustice and oppression.

This is not what I got out of reading Meditations by Marcus Aurelius and
articles on Stoicism. In common English use, "stoic" sometimes implies what
you said, but that's not the same as Stoicism-the-philosophy.

"The Stoics held that virtue is the only real good and so is both necessary
and, contrary to Aristotle, sufficient for happiness; it in no way depends on
luck."[0]

It's also true that Stoicism encourages acceptance of all outcomes, whatever
they are, which people misconstrue to imply it's not worth doing your best.
Here's a quote by Cicero on doing your best but not letting the outcome
influence your emotions:

"Take the case of one whose task it is to shoot a spear or arrow straight at
some target. One’s ultimate aim is to do all in one’s power to shoot straight,
and the same applies with our ultimate goal. In this kind of example, it is to
shoot straight that one must do all one can; none the less, it is to do all
one can to accomplish the task that is really the ultimate aim. It is just the
same with what we call the supreme good in life. To actually hit the target
is, as we say, to be selected but not sought."

[0] [http://www.iep.utm.edu/stoiceth/](http://www.iep.utm.edu/stoiceth/)

------
hartator
Kudos for writing about Stoicism. However, I think it's pretty weak article.
No mentions of negative visualization or Seneca while both are roots of the
Stoic philosophy.

~~~
FabHK
Agree, but to be fair, it's just 3 paragraphs or so, and it's not even aiming
to cover the fundamentals. More of a "look here what I found, and how it's
helped me."

------
camdenlock
Hmm. To be honest, this philosophy seems like a flowery and overstuffed
version of secular mindfulness, like an earlier step along the evolutionary
path to what would eventually be a really simple, straightforward strategy for
learning about and being with one's own mind in a skillful way.

If it helps you suffer less: great. But before you dive in, know that you
might be able to save a lot of time and avoid a lot of jargon by learning
about mindfulness from a secular source.

~~~
buzzybee
Stoicism is about achieving freedom, mindfulness is incidental to that.

------
heisenbit
Currently also on HN and much deeper article on stoicsm: On Anger, Disgust,
and Love: Interview with Martha Nussbaum

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13710672](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13710672)

[http://emotionresearcher.com/on-anger-disgust-
love/](http://emotionresearcher.com/on-anger-disgust-love/)

In a section further down the article she discusses the books "Upheavals of
Thoughts" and "Therapy of Desire". There she elaborate how stoicism and
emotions relate in a fairly comprehensive way.

------
ziikutv
I love learning about Archaeology and corollary some of the philosophies of
civilizations.

Stoicism has been one of the most appealing one to me. However, one issue I
have with Stoicism is similar to that of religions.

Most people who follow Stoicism or any other religion, tend to pick and choose
to what is the best fit of them.

Stoicism is not about giving up anything (common misunderstanding) but it IS
to moderate everything including things like our carnal desires. I do not
think anyone does this nowadays.

Does this mean we need a Stoicism 2.0 like we do in many religions? _______
2.0? Not entirely sure...

~~~
tim333
I think some philosophy 2.0s could be produced to take account of the advances
in scientific knowledge since Senca's time.

------
nnd
I haven't dug deep into stoicism, but it appears to have a lot of overlap with
buddhist philosophy. Is that a fair comparison?

~~~
ceras
Here's a good compare-and-contrast:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/faq#wiki_what_are_sim...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/faq#wiki_what_are_similarities_between_stoicism_and_buddhism.2C_in_terms_of_mindfulness.3F)

------
hvass
Other than this, the author has some great writing and you can read a recent
interview with her over at The Daily Stoic: [https://dailystoic.com/elif-
batuman-interview/](https://dailystoic.com/elif-batuman-interview/)

------
ArkyBeagle
Can anyone shed light on why so many Stoic societies/clubs seem to be
essentially religious? The Stoics I have read do not seem to be particularly
religious nor of any particular creed - some were polytheist, some were
monotheist, some seem to nearly be agnostic or atheist.

------
janvdberg
Tim Ferris (from the fourhourworkweek.com) also talks (podcast) and writes a
lot about this subject: [http://tim.blog/stoic/](http://tim.blog/stoic/)

------
mikehain
Another classic book to look at is "Letters from a Stoic" by Seneca the
Younger, published by Penguin Classics. Seneca is perhaps my favorite of the
Stoics.

------
howfun
This reminds me of Richard Feynman's quote "I am not responsible for the world
I live in" from his first autobiographical book.

------
cylinder
What if I want to suffer _more_? I want to be _less okay_ with all my
procrastination, my job situation, my lack of willpower in the face of
adversity, and more. I want to take my failures _more personally_ \- I want
losing to be painful like it is for Michael Jordan, I'm presently too content
with it.

~~~
theonemind
That doesn't seem very difficult. You can try judging yourself harshly and
make a habit of ruminating over it. Quite a number of people have those sorts
of habits and want to break them. You might find it hard to stop if you
develop those habits.

------
lngnmn
Not sure if a hipster's magazine could be an authoritative source.

The first paragraph told me that I should stop reading and what kind of
Stoicism I would find below.

------
Kenji
Note that stoicism is NOT rejecting and ignoring your feelings. If you feel
bad about something, that too is a fact that you have to accept and deal with
in the best way possible. Stoicism is about keeping your head up in the face
of adversity, and not about becoming a hardened robot capable of taking any
punishment. I think a lot of people on HN might get this wrong.

~~~
Nokinside
This is the modern Buddhist and psychology influenced interpretation of
stoicism and apatheia.

Personally I don't see much evidence that this really was the case in the
golden era of Stoicsm. Freedom from all passions was not the same as removal
of emotion, but it was very close to it.

> not about becoming a hardened robot capable of taking any punishment.

This was exactly what Stoics of the old saw as ideal and this view was
propagated in stories. Epicetus was a cripple and according to Origen his leg
was broken by his master.

>Epictetus' master one day was twisting his slave's leg to help the time pass.
Epictetus said calmly, "If you go on doing that, you will break my leg." The
twisting went on and the leg broke. Epictetus observed mildly, "Didn't I tell
you that you would break my leg?"

The story of Gaius Mucius Scaevola was also propagated by stoics. Mucius kept
his hand over the fire without indicating any pain while it burned.

~~~
Kenji
>This is the modern Buddhist and psychology influenced interpretation of
stoicism and apatheia.

No, it is not. Read Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. The man certainly argued
for a certain inner brilliance that does not come from emotionlessness. He'd
argue for you to be the even-tempered guy but full of fortitude and pouring
your entire being into what you are standing for and doing, but without
getting consumed by it. Stoicism is not the rejection of emotion, it is the
rejection of uncontrolled desire. That's a huge difference.

------
Pica_soO
The doormat really tied the throne-room together

------
jvanderbot
Oh look, it's the new mindfulness.

