Stoicism seems to get a lot of positive attention on Hacker News. While I support more philosophical content on HN, there usually isn't as much criticism of stoicism as any other topic. In the spirit of delegating to others who know more than me, here is an excerpt about stoicism from Friedrich Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil:
> 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 endeavouring 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 selftyranny—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.
All of the platonists, middle and neo- had less than warm views towards the Stoics. It’s staying power has been quite impressive considering it’s opponents through the ages.
Just read Beyond Good and Evil. It's pretty clear that Nietzsche is either ignorant (less likely) or trolling (more likely).
Nietzsche is happy to take the Stoic phrase of "according to nature," but isn't happy to use the Stoic view of nature. Instead, Nietzsche substitutes his own view, pretending as if the perspectives are one and the same.
It's hard for me to believe that Nietzsche didn't know enough about Stoicism to understand that he was arguing in bad faith. Despite presumably knowing better, he falls into the same misunderstanding that most novices do about Stoicism - that it somehow glorifies indifference at the cost of purpose, mercy, justice, regard, and so on.
"Indifferent" is a dangerous word to use in this context. Here I use it in the contemporary sense of "apathy." But it's important to note that "indifference" to a Stoic is more subtle - meaning neither good nor evil (or - dare I say - beyond good and evil), but not implying actual apathy.
Stoics did not view nature in this way. Most notable Stoics believed in Zeus - and consequentially in intelligent design. They held reverence not for an empty, random, and nihilistic nature, but for one of purpose, order, and beauty.
It's clear by observing the life of any notable Stoic that they valued the same qualities Nietzsche accuses them of disavowing. Pairing Nietzsche's criticisms alongside the very first book in Marcus Aurelius' Meditations:
Are Stoics really "profligate" (wildly extravagant/shamelessly immoral)?
> From my grandfather Verus I learned good morals... From my mother... simplicity in my way of living, far removed from the habits of the rich.
Are Stoics really "without purpose and regard"?
> From Apollonius I learned... undeviating steadiness of purpose
Are Stoics really "indifferent without measure" or "without mercy and justice"?
> From my brother Severus, to love my kin, and to love truth, and to love justice... a polity administered with regard to equal rights and equal freedom of speech, and the idea of a kingly government which respects most of all the freedom of the governed
Indeed, Nietzsche is so far off the mark that he would have benefited from observing the same virtues that Marcus enumerates:
> From Rusticus I received the impression... to abstain from rhetoric... and to read carefully, and not to be satisfied with a superficial understanding of a book
Nietzsche was content to have a superficial understanding of Stoicism - or at least was content to mischaracterize it. The Stoics have much to say of their view of nature - and much of it I discard without the intelligent design component. But that doesn't change that Nietzsche cannot honestly substitute his view of nature for the Stoics and fairly criticize them for the contradictions that arise.
Part of the beauty of the Stoic philosophy is that it's far more forgiving than Nietzsche. Marcus also learned from Rusticus:
> with respect to those who have offended me by words, or done me wrong, to be easily disposed to be pacified and reconciled, as soon as they have shown a readiness to be reconciled
Marcus wouldn't mind Nietzsche's criticisms very much.
I agree that Nietzsche is trolling here. This passage I believe occurs early in the book, in the section titled ‘On Philosophers’. In this section, Nietzsche attacks literally every philosophy he can think of with as much vehemence and irony as possible. This passage is rather a structural component towards the revelation of his agenda in the work.
He does this in order to support the central thesis of Beyond Good and Evil that emerges later in the work - that the men of the next generations should rather re-examine moral value itself, and then be the maker of new value systems. The ubermensch idea, though not mentioned in Beyond Good and Evil, is a direct descendent of this idea.
> Nietzsche cannot honestly substitute his view of nature for the Stoics and fairly criticize them for the contradictions that arise.
His argument is that, because Nature is not as the Stoics describe it, they cannot be living as they claim to be. The contradiction doesn't arise from Nietzsche making that substitution, but from the Stoics having mischaracterised Nature to begin with (according to his view of Nature).
He demonstrates the contradiction by describing what living in accordance with Nature would really look like, and it's not what the Stoics claim to be doing. He’s not arguing in bad faith or from ignorance. He’s trying to show that Stoic ethics are ungrounded because their view of Nature is wrong, which isn't all that different to his arguments against Christianity. Once "God is dead" you don't get to keep the ethical framework that's logically grounded on his existence.
Very well said. The only thing I would add is that the Stoic conception of Zeus is far closer in style to animism than it is to monotheism - Zeus was characterized by the Stoics as a very non-human force, one and the same with Logos or universal Reason. So even in this regard the modern usage of the words "intelligent design" though technically accurate, misleads most due to modern association with creationists and their anthro-centric view.
It is worth noting that many concepts the ancient Greeks invented have no close - and in some cases not even an approximate - analog in modern English.
Both the Stoic and Nietzschean viewpoints are valid, or rather neither is complete. On HN the Nietzschean viewpoint of "Will to Power" is usually more prevalent, entrepreneurialism and "startup hustle mentality" are all about imposing your will on the world to gain power and success. I think that this overabundance of Nietsches standpoint makes the Stoic standpoints stand out more. In contrast, some of the more Stoic forums become somewhat sedate and then a "you can change the world" type of post will contrast much more. (As an example, a lot of FIRE and permaculture forums can be very (maybe overly) Stoic)
Both viewpoints have merit but it depends on the circumstances of the person reading it which has more value for their particular situation.
Fundamental idea of a commercial culture. - Today one can see coming into existence the culture of a society of which commerce is as much the soul as personal contest was with the ancient Greeks and as war, victory and justice were for the Romans. The man engaged in commerce understands how to appraise everything without having made it, and to appraise it according to the needs of the consumer, not according to his own needs; "who and how many will consume this?" is his questions of questions. This type of appraisal he then applies instinctively and all the time: he applies it to everything, and thus also to the production of the arts and sciences, of thinkers, scholars, artists, statesmen, peoples and parties, of the entire age: in regard to everything that is made he inquires after supply and demand in order to determine the value of a thing in his own eyes. This becomes the character of an entire culture, thought through in the minutest and subtlest detail and imprinted in every will and every faculty: it is this of which you men of the coming century will be proud... – Nietzsche, Daybreak, 1880-1
This approach to early retirement largely relies on paring non-essentials from your life and recognizing how little material wealth you really need to be happy and satisfied.
It's an interesting ideology, but in its extreme form it goes hard against the grain of our culture and requires strong will to sustain. And in my experience it's hard to find a partner who buys into it.
I don't think early retirement is at odds with Stoicism, certainly not if its method includes a large amount of introspection about what you actually want and why. Read the forums first and then come back to say if they are Stoic or not. Especially the Lifestyle and Inspiration subforums, :)
In any case the request was for "more Stoic-oriented" forums, not necessarily "the most Stoic" forum.
What does Nietzsche mean by big-N Nature? How does Nature fit into Stoic thought?
I haven't really read any Stoic philosophy so I don't have the context, and this excerpt seems to attack a word that wasn't covered in the linked article. Or at least it's not clear to me how the ideas discussed in the article fit into this idea of "a being like Nature". Can you give a bit more background?
Nietzsche might actually be misreading the stoics here (is that heretical to say?), or I am not privy to the angle of his attack.
The stoic viewpoint is to play your role according to where you find yourself. Suffering is unavoidable. A stoic accepts this fact and does not let it perturb him. An ideal stoic fears neither pain nor death, and goes willingly to death when called. This in my view is what is meant by ‘living in accordance with nature.’ Respect for the bounds of your existence, and not giving into the depression and self pity that can accompany a less than lavish or comfortable existence.
Not really a philosophy of ‘raging against the dying of the light.’
The Stoics were pantheists who believed gods, fate, matter came from Nature, the most ancient goddess. Nature assembles out of the four elements inanimate rocks, souled beings like mice and rational beings, Humans. Humans alone have a ruling center (Hegemonikon) granted by Nature which allows them to freely choose good or evil.
Nietzsche's criticisms of Stoicism are well-known and there exists a plethora of constructive responses. Some of his points are valid, particularly regarding an outdated concept of nature as an intelligent teleological universe, but some points are a bit of a strawman created for what seems to simply be persuasive effect.
I'm not intimately familiar with stoicism. If you could elaborate on what part you feel is a straw-man or even link to some of the `constructive responses' I'd appreciate it.
while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature - here Nietzsche accuses all stoics of being hypocrites. Surely there are some who are not.
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 - I know of no Stoic, ancient or modern, who advocates this.
what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. - the Stoics consistently cautioned against dogma, evidenced in practice by the abundance of various interpretations - Marcus Aurelius's interpretation differs in ways from Seneca's, which differs in ways from Epictetus's, Zeno's, Chrysippus's, etc. A common saying among modern Stoics is "Stoicism has no pope."
As for constructive responses, google "responding to nietzsche on stoicism."
> I know of no Stoic, ancient or modern, who advocates this.
Nietzsche is not saying that Stoics are consciously doing this, rather that it's an unconscious process - and in Nietzsche's view, a rather fundamental one that far from just the Stoics are involved in. One of Nietzsche's central tenets is that pretty much all 'knowledge' and 'belief' is just us projecting our interpretations (rooted in what we would now term cognitive biases, value judgements, sensations, etc) on reality and then "reading" them back to ourselves as the ground truth, which is in fact unknowable as such.
In general, Nietzsche regards philosophical attitudes as determined by physiology and environment, and in fact says later that Stoicism is a fine medicine for certain kinds of people in some periods of time.
"One of Nietzsche's central tenets is that pretty much all 'knowledge' and 'belief' is just us projecting our interpretations (rooted in what we would now term cognitive biases, value judgements, sensations, etc) on reality and then "reading" them back to ourselves as the ground truth, which is in fact unknowable as such."
Something which Nietzsche is guilty of himself. But that road leads to postmodernism.
Nietzsche did not claim to hold a privileged position in this regard, nor in his opinion does that position necessarily lead to postmodernism. Indeed Nietzsche would have been mortally offended by the entire postmodern project, the forerunners of which he clearly believed to be inspired by decadence and ressentiment. Nietzsche's "there are no facts, only interpretations" goes much deeper than postmodernist ideas about moral relativism or whatever: Nietzsche denies that there is (or at least that we have the grounds to believe in) any such thing as responsibility, guilt, will, causality, Being, or even identity, both in the personal sense and the logical sense.
His focus instead is that, given the essential failure of metaphysics, to instead try to destroy as many as the 'old idols' rooted in these cognitive biases and value judgements - to see to what extent life could endure the incorporation of small-t truth (Nietzsche suspected that many errors were actually necessary for life) - and to re-evaluate our values with the (arbitrary!) view of increasing the health of the human animal. And he makes clear that this depends on the person: "the exception should not try to become the rule." Nietzsche's philosophy is explicitly not for everyone.
In terms of practical life advice, Nietzsche ends on somewhat common ground with the Stoics -
> My formula for greatness in a human being is amor fati: that one wants nothing to be different, not forward, not backward, not in all eternity. Not merely bear what is necessary, still less conceal it—all idealism is mendacity in the face of what is necessary—but love it.
On the contrary, he is claiming to hold a privileged position; not perhaps on the true nature of knowledge, belief, or "ground truth" (although I believe he is doing that, too), but on the ability to determine what is projected interpretation and what isn't. In fact, if he isn't claiming that privileged position, then he is more than halfway to postmodernism; not perhaps denying that such a position is impossible, but at least denying that anyone has (or possibly could) find one.
By the way, one of the difficulties of a philosophy explicitly not for everyone is that it cannot avoid turning into us-versus-them, followed shortly by the wise and knowing versus the misguided, misled, and heathen sheep. One lesson of the 20th century (if it needed teaching again) was that philosophy can be weaponized.
(One nice thing about (my interpretation of) epicureanism and possibly Zhuangzi is that the sheep may be heathens, but I don't need to care.)
I'm not familiar with the responding literature, but one thing that stands out is his reduction to "living according to life" and dismissal of that as tautological.
He poses the question "Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different?" A central point of Stoicism is answering no to that. Recognizing that our preferences are merely preferences, not needs, and that we can go forward without them controlling our attitude toward what life brings.
Of course we have preferences, and we make evaluations, and we endeavor to change. But Stoicism is partly about grasping those things loosely rather than staking our emotional well-being on them.
Even the cutesy "live according to life": does anyone deny that we often resist life? We know there will be setbacks, losses, death, etc., and instead of anticipating and flowing with them we are surprised and dismayed.
Nietzsche valued a sort of resistance to life. But it's a strawman to treat that value as axiomatic and dismiss Stoicism as inherently contradictory.
My favourite criticism of stoicism, is in identifying the strange dichotomy between the idea of the need to cause injury in self defense (or the righteous defense of others), and a virtuous desire to avoid harming others.
HN is the perfect intersection of Nietzschean and Stoic thought. "I am a universe unto myself, a digital nomad above culture and bias, rationally projecting my will out into the world. My success is mine alone and my failures are because the world does not understand me. You are emotionally-driven, ideologically blinded, and all your failures are due to your inability to simultaneously center yourself and push yourself. (p.s. space colony libertarianism)"
Here, Nietzsche constructs a strawman of a philosophy he disagrees with and then eloquently burns it down. It’s energetic and emotional language, but we shouldn’t conflate that with truth.
Here, Nietzsche constructs a strawman of a philosophy he disagrees with and then eloquently burns it down. It’s energetic and emotional language, but we shouldn’t conflate that with truth
"That which convinces is not necessarily true, it is merely convincing" -- Nietzsche
> 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 endeavouring 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 selftyranny—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.