
Stoicism's Appeal to the Rich and Powerful - fanf2
https://www.exurbe.com/stoicisms-appeal-to-the-rich-and-powerful/
======
bjornedstrom
I like the slightly provocative title.

To the stoics themselves, wealth and power are indifferent: neither good or
bad.

I say that the title is provocative because wealth and power often provoke
people, as can be seen in this very discussion (here on Hacker News).
Depending on where you come from and where you are in life, a phrase such as
"rich and powerful" may call forth the negative stereotype of evil wealthy
people, or it may call forth the positive stereotype of Hacker News style
entrepreneurs.

It is much easier to be indifferent to wealth and power if you already have
it.

My take on the supposed rise in popularity of stoicism is not that it appeals
to the "rich and powerful" per se. I do however think it appeals to people who
have found themselves in a situation when they no longer have obvious things
to live for, which is certainly the case for these people.

If you suddenly find yourself with free time and autonomy, philosophy is a
pretty good thing to fill the void with, I think.

~~~
zcid
I have found a stoic attitude a great method by which to weather the ups and
downs of life. Whether that means stubbing my toe, dealing with death, or
finding myself without an income or a place to live, acceptance of the
situation as it is prevents wasting time and energy railing against the
inevitabilities of life.

~~~
sankoz
Do you have small kids? Just curious, because having a small helpless human
dependent on you for their survival and well being has made me change my
attitude towards life a bit away from Stoicism.

~~~
vanake
Probaly obvious to you, but why?

~~~
fsloth
Not OP. Anecdotally stoicism does nothing for your capability to nurture your
children or make actively wise choices. The best example of this is the
painfully obvious one of Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus.

The main failure for the Roman empire was that he failed to name a successor
worthy to the task, so Commodus got the gig. I don't know what his failures as
a father were or were there any but Commodus came out just wrong either way.

Either this teaches us one of two things or both: 1. even a wise sage is
unable to heal his family or 2. Stoicism does not grant you universal wisdom.

Either way, the outcome is that stoicism is obviously not a universal remedy.

If you read Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, the take out message is that the
world is shit and people are horrible, but that is no reason not to behave as
a gentleman and carry yourself with dignity.

Stoicism can be applied by personal choice to various situations in ones life,
but it's hard to make it into a socially pro-active philosophy.

And yes, I generalized whole lot of stuff based on one example only. Call me
bayesian.

~~~
olau
You can be a great preacher but a bad practitioner and vice versa.

Your story reminds of people pointing fingers at misbehaving children of
kindergarten teachers.

------
dalbasal
Stoicism was "originally" a philosophy of (mostly) the rich and powerful of
Rome, so it's unsurprisingly compatible.

It's moderate, in that it doesn't prescribe any big external changes to your
society or any particular lifestyle. It also reminds me somewhat of deism,
which was a popular elite philosophy around the time of the US' founding.
Secularism in all but name, with a moderate's concern for the implications of
being too extreme. God exists, but let's set that aside.

This is relevant, because the dominant philosophies at the time (and always)
were religious. Some of the completing philosophies mentioned, were much more
prone to conflict with the religious order.

For example, to this day, the conflict between Jews of the time and
"Hellenisers" is a taboo subject in religious circles. These were secular
philosophies that became popular in Roman Judea, often among the more
internationally minded elite, encroaching on religious monopoly of certain
subjects. Epicorus (mentioned here) is a Talmudic villain, and will still get
a rise out of many rabbis.

~~~
al_chemist
> Stoicism was "originally" a philosophy of (mostly) the rich and powerful of
> Rome

Stoicism was originally a philosophy of a poor shipwreck survivor from Cyprus.
It was made popular in Greece and then imported into Roman culture.

~~~
dalbasal
Hence the "quotes."

------
DanielBMarkham
For those not wanting to wade through this, the thesis seems to be
_"...Stoicism caught on among Roman elites because it was the one form of
philosophical guidance that didn’t urge them to renounce wealth or
power....can be used to justify the idea that the rich and powerful are meant
to be rich and powerful, that the poor and downtrodden are meant to be poor
and downtrodden, and that even the worst actions are actually good in an
ineffable and eternal way. Such claims can be used to justify complacency,
social callousness, and even exploitative or destructive behavior."_

I love philosophers, history, and philosophy. I consider myself an existential
stoic. (How I reconcile these philosophies I will save for another day) The
problem I had with this essay is the same problem I have with a lot of
philosophy: it takes itself far, far too seriously for my tastes.

Do the rich adapt stoicism because of the underlying metaphysics in much the
same way that powerful Romans did? Did powerful Romans even adapt it in this
way, or are we left with various interpretations depending on which sources we
use? More to the point, when you pick up a philosophy, decide you like it and
want to apply it in your life, is this decision akin to adopting a new
religion, becoming part of a cult? Or is it more like entertaining some useful
concepts that you play on playing with to see how useful they may be to you?

It's not a facile question. If we adopt philosophies in the same we adopt
worldviews, then the history and inner conflicts can be quite important. If,
however, we adopt philosophies in the same we might pick up a grape Slurpee at
the local seven-eleven, then not so much.

Philosophy tends to take itself far too seriously, and it tends to take a few
really good ideas and beat the living heck out of them until they don't work
anymore. I doubt the thesis here. Or rather, it's overstated by a significant
degree.

~~~
paol
That is _not_ the thesis of the article, and misrepresenting it that way is
doing it a diservice. It would be better to "wade" through it in full than to
mis-sumarize it.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
It would be good for both of us, along with the other HN readers, if you
provided what you thought the thesis was.

I'm happy to be corrected, but if all you provide is disagreement, it doesn't
do anybody any good.

~~~
paol
In fact it doesn't have a thesis, as far as the question "why does stoicism
appeal to modern rich and powerful". The partial quote you posted is part of a
musing around that topic, but it only takes reading that paragraph in full to
see what you call its thesis is nothing of the sort.

Here it is for the lazy:

"Thus, turning to the questions that Nellie asked me for her article, when I
see a fad for stoicism among today’s rising rich, I see a good side and a bad
side. The good side is that stoicism, sharing a lot with Buddhism, teaches
that the only real treasures are inner treasures–virtue, self-mastery,
courage, charity–and that all things in existence are part of one good,
divine, and sacred whole, a stance which can combat selfishness and
intolerance by encouraging self-discipline and teaching us to love and value
every stranger as much as we love our families and ourselves. But on the
negative side, stoicism’s Providential claim that everything in the universe
is already perfect and that things which seem bad or unjust are secretly good
underneath (a claim Christianity borrowed from Stoicism) can be used to
justify the idea that the rich and powerful are meant to be rich and powerful,
that the poor and downtrodden are meant to be poor and downtrodden, and that
even the worst actions are actually good in an ineffable and eternal way. Such
claims can be used to justify complacency, social callousness, and even
exploitative or destructive behavior."

------
pretty_bubbles
I always had the impression that stoic virtues mandate that someone who has
power to bring change and improve the lives of others also has a duty of doing
so. I guess the problem with any philosophy is that humans tend to pick and
choose the parts that are convenient. In any case, I still think stoicism
teaches invaluable skills in today's society.

------
supergilbert
Stoicism is gaining popularity now because it's a counter reponse to the
constant stimulation we are put under.

Non stop food, entertainment, plus the feeling on not being able to have any
effect on the global system. Stoicism is way to stay sane.

I believe this trend will end and we will see a regain of existencialism and
romantism.

~~~
mlthoughts2018
How does stoicism counter overstimulation?

~~~
Emma_Goldman
It invites you to step back from the mundane and consider your life, its
infinitesimal place in the universe, its ultimate transience, and the kind of
attitude and virtues you want to practice.

It's a form of deep reflection that places your life in a cosmological
perspective. In that respect it serves a similar function to prayer and the
contemplation of the divine in some religions.

~~~
mlthoughts2018
I don’t think stoicism is related to those things. Those sound like nice
meditative things to do, which are compatible with a wide range of different
philosophical schools of thought, but none of that sounds like it is actively
connected to the defining characteristics of stoicism.

~~~
Emma_Goldman
I disagree. I have only read parts of Epictetus' Discourses and Aerelius'
Meditations, but I think it is borne out by both texts. I don't have them to
hand. But quickly looking through an online edition of the Meditations, I am
faced with a great many passages matching the stated views. For example:

'Though thou shouldst be going to live three thousand years, and as many times
ten thousand years, still remember that no man loses any other life than this
which he now lives, nor lives any other than this which he now loses. The
longest and shortest are thus brought to the same.'

'How quickly all things disappear, in the universe the bodies themselves, but
in time the remembrance of them; what is the nature of all sensible things,
and particularly those which attract with the bait of pleasure or terrify by
pain, or are noised abroad by vapoury fame; how worthless, and contemptible,
and sordid, and perishable, and dead they are- all this it is the part of the
intellectual faculty to observe.'

Both quotes are from this online edition:
[http://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.2.two.html](http://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.2.two.html)

~~~
Amygaz
That’s still not what stoicism is. Those quotes are one of many about not
holding your success or who you are to materialistic goals, or infinite goals.

while reflecting on yourself via meditation can be useful, it is not the only
way, it doesn’t need a one week retreat, and if the goal is to meditate on the
next idea that will revolutionize everything then that is definitely not
stoic.

~~~
Emma_Goldman
I did not say that it was all that stoicism is. I am not even claiming that it
is especially central to stoicism. But it is undeniably a part of stoicism, as
any fair reading of those two quotes indicates. Yes one of the central beliefs
of stoicism is that we should inculcate within ourselves an ability to
withstand any change in our external circumstances. But it is a complex
philosophical system. It is perfectly possible for stoicism to admit both that
belief, and the view that I'm ascribing to it.

------
paol
Interesting article. I'd like to encourage people to read more stuff from her
blog, it's absolutely excellent.

I'm currently reading this piece[0] (teaser quote: "then, in the early
seventeenth century, Francis Bacon invented progress."). Then there's the
series ostensibly about Machiavelli[1], but that is actually a whirlwind tour
of Italian renaissance history, philosophy, intrigue and eventually, yes,
Machiavelli.

[0] [https://www.exurbe.com/on-progress-and-historical-
change/](https://www.exurbe.com/on-progress-and-historical-change/)

[1] [https://www.exurbe.com/machiavelli-s-p-
q-f/](https://www.exurbe.com/machiavelli-s-p-q-f/)

------
coldtea
Being rich and powerful is not enough.

They also want to signal that they are "stoic", nonchalant bad-assess ready to
take on everything fate throws at them -- second rate caviar, aging like
everybody else, the $10M condo not being just right, some competitor gaining
ground, and so on.

They also wake up earlier than common folk, exercise and eat better than
common folk, and so on. All of which are easy when you have personal chefs and
a big entourage to take care of "details" like washing the dishes, taking the
kids to school, preparing your clothes, making breakfast, and so on...

~~~
2III7
Waking up early and getting things done is a matter of self discipline. I had
trouble with all of those things until I started going to bed early with my
son and wife. Before that I stayed up late and was tremendously tired all the
time. Now I wake up at 6 AM without an alarm and just automagically get shit
done and have left over time for my side projects, fixing the house etc.

~~~
coldtea
> _Waking up early and getting things done is a matter of self discipline._

Anything a person can do is a matter of self-discipline. I could not have
slept for 36 days because of working 2-shifts and still "have the discipline"
to go for a run. Slim chances, but it happens.

But self-discipline is much easier to muster in "easy mode", when your other
duties are taken care of by an army of servants.

Talk of self-discipline without talk of environmental factors making people
less tired, less stressed, and less concerned with basic life matters to focus
on that discipline is moot.

And talk of self-discipline should take into account aggregates, to discover
what's the baseline for most people under certain conditions, not point at
some outliers that did it against all odds and say "Here, anyone can do it"
(as if difficulty doesn't matter). That's like pointing out Usain Bolt and
saying "here, anyone can run sub-10 secs and if you don't you just lack the
discipline".

Do you think e.g. a-list actors who trivially lose amazing amounts of weight
for roles have "more discipline" that the average folks who statistically fail
much worse in their diets?

Or that they have personal chefs, trainers, massagers, cleaners, and so on,
plus a 5-10 million dollar incentive (to get the next "action" part), siding
with their "self-discipline).

~~~
2III7
> But self-discipline is much easier to muster in "easy mode", when your other
> duties are taken care of by an army of servants.

Self discipline is also easier when you actually work on your self discipline,
plan your day, have a schedule, stay off your phone and computer when not
working and so on. There are countless ways you can make your life easier and
stress free.

Losing weight is a matter of eating healthy foods, using the stairs instead of
elevators, taking walks during lunchtime, don't eat/drink sugar rich foods and
drinks. Losing weight is obviously difficult when one has a medical condition
that prevents losing weight, but when you don't it is a matter of self
discipline to lose weight. Also taking daily vitamin D supplements makes a
huge positive impact on ones mental and physical health.

~~~
Djvacto
Nothing you are saying is explicitly wrong. Yeah life is easier when you have
self discipline. But you're presenting what you're saying as a counter to what
the other person is saying, which is that having all of those extra
environmental factors (personal chef, housekeeping, etc) make it way easier.
What you're saying is self discipline for the common folk is easier when they
work on it vs if they don't. That doesn't negate that while them
working/focusing on self discipline is easier by, say, a factor of 25%
(numbers are just for explanation purposes), having to not worry about doing
the dishes, planning your meals, etc makes it easier by 85 or 90%.

Everything is a matter of self discipline, sure, but that's one factor out of
a billion. You seem to be arguing that losing weight or getting your life
together can be _as easy_ as it is for the rich and powerful if you want it
bad enough and take some vitamin D. That makes it easier, but not as easy as
it is for, say, Jeff Bezos to exercise every day.

~~~
matwood
In some ways it's easier to exercise self-discipline when someone is super
rich, but in others it is harder. For example, look at all of the rich and
powerful with drug and alcohol problems. When someone has almost everything it
is easy to become lazy and/or abuse substances.

Is it easier for Bezos to get out of bed 20 minutes earlier and do 100 burpees
than it is for you or I? IMO, it's not that different.

~~~
coldtea
> _In some ways it 's easier to exercise self-discipline when someone is super
> rich, but in others it is harder. For example, look at all of the rich and
> powerful with drug and alcohol problems. When someone has almost everything
> it is easy to become lazy and/or abuse substances._

I look at them, and also see how it's easier for them to get out of their
abuse problems, with top notch rehabilitation facilities and everything set up
for them.

They also get top notch medical assistance while doing them, and first rate
drugs. Many even have their doctors prepare the stuff.

Which they can afford and do at a nice environment, not some crack house.

And when they're caught by the police, they usually get a slap on the wrist
and some rehab time, not hard jail like commoners.

And when you stop doing drugs, you get to go back to a nice warm house, and
financial independence. Not to your abusing home, or living in the streets.

There are tons of junkies around where I live (not a shabby or poor
neighborhood even, just has a shabby square nearby), that don't have these
easy ways out.

Now, imagine a rich person, getting out of drugs, while enjoying all those
niceties while he was abusing them, and saying "I did it all through my self-
discipline" \-- and implying by that that common junkies lack the same level
of self-discipline (while they might have 2x his self-discipline but face 10x
the problems to overcome).

------
NeoStoic
There is a certain hipster Stoicism out there yes. But Stoicism is also a
valid response to the chaos and overwhelming hedonic treadmill of the 21st
century. Look at the book below for how Stoiscim can help [1]:

"Anton shows how today's consumerist lifestyles distort and trivialize the
need for self-worth, and he argues that each person faces the genuinely heroic
tasks of contributing to the world's beauty, harmony, and resources; of
forgiving the cosmos for self-conscious finitude; and of gratefully accepting
the ambiguity of life's gifts."

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Sources-Significance-Rejuvenation-
Phi...](https://www.amazon.com/Sources-Significance-Rejuvenation-Philosophy-
Communication/dp/1557535612)

~~~
HNLurker2
I presume I am talking to the author right now of the book [1]. Anyway I find
fascinating that you used Ernest Becker ideas (his book denial of death) and
others overlooked ideas. I would check out the book.

~~~
NeoStoic
Nope, not the author! Just a reader.

------
sigi45
I actually like to see proof that it is now a realy thing on Wall Street and
Silicon Valey.

Just because one person mentions it somewhere, doesn't mean a relevant portion
is actually doing / living it.

But yes as a software engineere and growing up in a modern socieity, reading
about Stoicism comes close to how i perceive my life. But there have probably
always been people thinking in that direction anyway.

------
elchief
"In a rich man's house, there is no place to spit but his face"

Diogenes

Stoicism is popular in a variety of communities on reddit, so I bet its
popularity in SV is related

A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy is an easy introduction
to Stoicism

[https://www.amazon.com/Guide-Good-Life-Ancient-
Stoic/dp/0195...](https://www.amazon.com/Guide-Good-Life-Ancient-
Stoic/dp/0195374614/)

------
hprotagonist
Here is the failure mode, aptly summarized by someone who knew. You can
weaponize any faith or metaphysic this way; some are more obvious than others.

As a personal way of thinking about your own circumstances, it’s fine as far
as it goes. As a social ethic for how it’s OK to organize a society, it can
quickly descend into something that, well:

 _For my part, I would say, welcome infidelity! welcome atheism! welcome
anything! in preference to the gospel, as preached by those Divines!

They convert the very name of religion into an engine of tyranny, and
barbarous cruelty, and serve to confirm more infidels, in this age, than all
the infidel writings of Thomas Paine, Voltaire, and Bolingbroke, put together,
have done!

These ministers make religion a cold and flinty-hearted thing, having neither
principles of right action, nor bowels of compassion. They strip the love of
God of its beauty, and leave the throng of religion a huge, horrible,
repulsive form.

It is a religion for oppressors, tyrants, man-stealers, and thugs. It is not
that “pure and undefiled religion” which is from above, and which is “first
pure, then peaceable, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits,
without partiality, and without hypocrisy.”

But a religion which favors the rich against the poor; which exalts the proud
above the humble; which divides mankind into two classes, tyrants and slaves;
which says to the man in chains, stay there; and to the oppressor, oppress on;
it is a religion which may be professed and enjoyed by all the robbers and
enslavers of mankind; it makes God a respecter of persons, denies his
fatherhood of the race, and tramples in the dust the great truth of the
brotherhood of man._

Frederick Douglass, 1852

~~~
ripsawridge
Nice. All philosophies (or religions, what have you) must be pursued with
kindness for all beings first, last and middle.

~~~
HNLurker2
Just like Russel said not to take any philosophy for granted (at that time
Marxism philosophy was mainstream): [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fb3k6tB-
Or8](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fb3k6tB-Or8)

------
AlexTWithBeard
Many rich and powerful are extremely ambitious. They aim high and get very
upset when they don't get what they aimed for. The higher you get the less if
your endeavors will succeed.

Stoicism is a good way of accepting the failure and preserving one's sanity.

------
roel_v
I've been trying to read Marcus Aureleus for a few years, but it feels like
wading through a swamp and I generally give up after 10 pages. Any
recommendations for an annotated version for today's readers?

~~~
eggy
I read the Meditations in secondary school, high school, but it was the
Penguin Classic edition I think. I am reading it for a fourth time, a new
translation by Gregory Hays that is wonderful. I grew up poor, but went to a
Jesuit high school, took Latin for two years, and I've found Stoicism
appealing, because it tied in with my family's spartan lifestyle. We didn't
have a phone until I was 12 or 13, and a TV until I was 8 or 10 I think.
Minimal furniture, hanging clothes out the window, etc. I can see how it
appeals to those say in Silicon Valley, as an alternative or contrast to their
materialistic, high-tech world, a refuge. I am not discounting that it appeals
to them or anyone for that matter, simply because it has a lot of truth or
substance to it. I consider part of my life as stoic, and part of it along the
lines of romanticism. I've considered learning Koine Greek to read it, and
others, in their original language.

As a side note, my second reading was provoked by the movie "Silence of the
Lambs", where Hannibal Lecter coaches Clarice to, "“First principles, Clarice.
Simplicity. Read Marcus Aurelius." ;)

~~~
HNLurker2
>As a side note, my second reading was provoked by the movie "Silence of the
Lambs", where Hannibal Lecter coaches Clarice to, "“First principles, Clarice.
Simplicity. Read Marcus Aurelius

Remembered saying something that a man craves for what he sees.

------
qaq
Any chance it's people who are stoic have a higher chance of moving up to
become reach and powerful?

------
helloindia
"Stoicism was likely influenced by Buddhism through contact with India during
the wars of Alexander the Great, and shares a lot with Buddhism: the whole
universe is one vast, living, divine whole."

Universe as a "divine whole" is a concept found in Advaita vedanta, not in
Buddhism.

“Life is full of suffering, but that suffering is a path to understanding a
larger good.”

Again wrong. Understanding true nature of reality, any experience
happiness,suffering, neutral is considered a path. Not just suffering.

------
bovermyer
The short version of the article is this:

Stoicism is a wonderful tool for improving your inner peace, but be careful,
lest its focus on acceptance prevent you from working to improve the outside
world.

------
HNLurker2
>Stoicism was likely influenced by Buddhism through contact with India during
the wars of Alexander the Great, and shares a lot with Buddhism

So is it directly influenced by Buddhism or we presume. I find both Buddhism
and stoicism similar in the sense of self (seeing yourself as a bigger just
oneness basically mysticism Bertrand Russel talked about(1)).

(1) Mysticism and Logic and Other Essays
[https://g.co/kgs/UQD6H4](https://g.co/kgs/UQD6H4)

------
waynecochran
One could easily write and an article titled “Stoicism’s Appeal to the Poor
and Disenfranchised.” Power and wealth is orthogonal to Stoic Philosophy. It
counters much of today’s culture of blame of jealously of others and offers a
more fulfilling and pragmatic outlook on one’s circumstances, rich or poor.

~~~
curuinor
But the article's point is that its social ethos consists of just justifying
the way things are. Two millenia later, we figured out that we can improve
many of the way things were, we nearly abolished chattel slavery, we abolished
a few diseases, we replaced debt slavery with bankruptcy...

~~~
waynecochran
There is a difference between justifying and accepting. The article seems to
confuse the two.

------
lordnacho
Maybe what's useful is that even when you have a ton of money, you still have
problems. Not just absolute ones that nobody can help (your friends and
relatives dying, illness), but also problems that people who don't have a load
of money think you ought to be able to do something about: kids not using the
chances you give them, issues with your reputation, status compared to other
rich people.

------
aitchnyu
What is the story of Seneca running a brothel with his slaves? I can't seem to
Google it.

------
salty_biscuits
Sort of not surprising, Seneca was fabulously wealthy and politically
powerful.

------
Roxo
This article is okay, but contains some misinformation about the origin and
principles of Stoicism. The NYT article itself was an absolute disgrace,
completely misrepresenting what Stoicism is.

------
istjohn
TL;DR:

 _Because I think it’s important that we mingle some Voltaire in with our
Seneca, and remember that stoicism’s invaluable advice for taking better care
of ourselves inside can–if we fail to mix it with other ideas–come with a big
blind spot regarding the world outside ourselves, and whether we should change
it._

------
LifeLiverTransp
Avoid feeling guilt or empathy towards those who you ripped off on your way up
with these easy steps

