What is your approach to achieving your Stoic goals? Presumably it doesn't occur just automatically.

What is your approach to achieving your Stoic goals? Presumably it doesn't occur just automatically. — Leontiskos

Well if you're interested in my take on pop-psychology, I think that stoicism has appealed to many as a refuge where they can regenerate or escape from the world through a attitude of indifference. This has been my goal for many years, and I don't want to speak for others; but, it may have been something of interest to others. What I aim at is a better understanding why I am not happy with my own progress, which I won't ask others to diagnose; but, perhaps see if what I am saying might be true. So, the habituation of studying stoicism and practicing it, as one would praise God every Sunday, to the stoic being, maintaining an attitude of indifference.

- So the goal is an attitude of indifference. How does one get to that goal? Is it just by practicing indifference? Or is there some better way to get there?

What has been your experience with stoicism, or what do you think is the issue here? — Shawn

Do you practice any sport or fitness regimen? I suspect that is a factor. The root of 'asceticism' is actually 'askesis' meaning 'training', and I'm sure many of the classical Stoics were fighting fit. Indifference to heat and cold and to physical discomfort is not something that is acquired by thinking about it. That's one reason that modern culture is inimical to stoicism - it has accustomed us to previously unheard-of levels of pleasure and comfort and encourages only the pursuit of consumption.

(Note to self: follow your own advice! :rage: )

I don't think that self-torture is a beneficial way to practice stoicism. The basic goal, if I remember right, is to realize that we have little if any control in life, and accepting that, if we're able to accept it, leads to well-being.

I don't think that self-torture is a beneficial way to practice stoicism. — praxis

Interesting that the suggestion of physical fitness is immediately interpreted as 'self-torture' ;-)

So the goal is an attitude of indifference. How does one get to that goal? — Leontiskos

Well, most stoics believed in the practice of stoic logic, much of which has been lost to history.

Is it just by practicing indifference? Or is there some better way to get there? — Leontiskos

To the first, I believe that practicing indifference is something that one has to desire or will into the way one behaves or thinks. Stoics could be ranked as some of the most sensitive and in-tune people with human nature. Otherwise we never would have heard of Epictetus, or the ancient logician, Chrysippus... and then there's Seneca, who kind of had everything a person could desire.

To the second question, there is actually a school of philosophy called 'cynicism', which stoics admired and thought, the cynics, made a shortcut to virtue. I am not so confident to become a cynic as of soon.

Interesting that the suggestion of physical fitness is immediately interpreted as 'self-torture' — Wayfarer

That's not the part that caught my attention. I enjoy working out and have been doing it religiously my whole life.

Indifference to heat and cold and to physical discomfort is not something that is acquired by thinking about it. — Wayfarer

Sound a lot like self-torture to me.

Yeah, true that, might have been a little hyperbolic on my part. Nevertheless I'm sure that it was a major element in actual Stoicism, as distinct from today's armchair versions.

I am not so confident to become a cynic as of soon. — Shawn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutter_punk is the modern phenomena I associate with ancient cynic philosophy.

Yeah, true that, might have been a little hyperbolic on my part. Nevertheless I'm sure that it was a major element in actual Stoicism, as distinct from today's armchair versions. — Wayfarer

I agree with you in a Dopamine Nation sort of way.

Indifference to heat and cold and to physical discomfort is not something that is acquired by thinking about it. That's one reason that modern culture is inimical to stoicism - it has accustomed us to previously unheard-of levels of pleasure and comfort and encourages only the pursuit of consumption. — Wayfarer

As others have said, it seems a little too tortuous to do that. A drill sergeant couldn't motivate me to work out.

I agree with the whole online identity thing as pretty nasty stuff. A lot of the magic behind advertising is to appeal to your pleasure center of the brain, thus distracting you or at worse running you on a hedonic treadmill. YouTube seems like a harmless activity; but, there's a lot of programming going on with behaviorizing you to respond to cue's.

But seriously, is there any end to consumption? Can one draw a line hard and fast over how illustrious wants can be detrimental to a person?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutter_punk is the modern phenomena I associate with ancient cynic philosophy. — Moliere

Yes, well, I guess if one sifts the chaff for the hay, then the cynics had something to say, as would the people you linked. The rest just want drugs or are mentally ill.

From my reading, I can't but see a modern day young German guy being those types. Punk not dead, antifa and all that.

But seriously, is there any end to consumption? Can one draw a line hard and fast over how illustrious wants can be detrimental to a person? — Shawn

Hey I’m also wrestling with all this. I often feel - actually I know - I’ve been corrupted by the society I’ve been born into. It’s a constant battle - the original meaning of jihad was spiritual struggle, although that’s been corrupted too.

One thing I do know. In my late 20's I discovered the joy of running. I never became a competitive runner or joined races or anything of the kind, but I discovered that I could run 5 or 10km regularly, and that it produced a fantastic feeling of like having had your whole body taken apart and re-assembled. I guess that was an endorphin thing, 'runner's high'. It was hugely effective as a mood stabiliser. Those days are long gone, but I still work out at gym.

Anyway, there's definitely a link between modern society and mental well-being. Hence the appeal of stoicism, paleo food, and all the other 'return to the ancients' kinds of movements, but it takes more than reading about it.

Hey I’m also wrestling with all this. I often feel - actually I know - I’ve been corrupted by the society I’ve been born into. — Wayfarer

Well, I've asked this many times before; but, the hippies got some of this right, yet veered off into hedonism, as a virtue. It then sabotaged anything they had to say to take this route.

It’s a constant battle - the original meaning of jihad was spiritual struggle, although that’s been corrupted too. — Wayfarer

Well, we do live in a democratic world at the moment, yet the whole world is concerned about such terror watchlist flagging terms. I don't know how things went so bad after 9/11.

Anyway, there's definitely a link between modern society and mental well-being. Hence the appeal of stoicism, paleo food, and all the other 'return to the ancients' kinds of movements, but it takes more than reading about it. — Wayfarer

Assuredly. I guess this goes into the realm of practicing philosophy; but, go ahead and find a practicing philosopher. As you said in another thread, there is definitely a revival of ancient stoicism and philosophy. A lot of people are talking about, for sure.

What has been your experience with stoicism, or what do you think is the issue here? Thoughts and comments welcome.

Stoicism is about eradicating suffering by detaching from things outside of one's control; and it makes a really good pragmatic philosophy for normal life. However, it is worth noting that you must self-reflect on what you should be doing with your life (rationally) and then utilize any irrational emotions you have as fuel (if applicable) to achieve it: so, technically, the best approach is not always to eradicate the pathos.

Ultimately, I would say that Stoicism is about living a life guided by rationality and reason; and to only use emotions when it suits them.

If you are struggling to implement Stoic principles in your life, then try reading (and re-reading) the meditations and implement a robust lifestyle-structure to build self-discipline and self-integrity. Then move from continence to temperance.

Nietzsche does have a good point that it is essential to the human condition to have irrational emotional responses to things; and it is seems kind of wrong to completely eradicate that. E.g., do you really NOT want to shed a tear at your mom's funeral?

The rest just want drugs or are mentally ill. — Shawn

I don't think one needs a philosophy or lifestyle to want drugs or be mentally ill.

However, it is worth noting that you must self-reflect on what you should be doing with your life (rationally) and then utilize any irrational emotions you have as fuel (if applicable) to achieve it: so, technically, the best approach is not always to eradicate the pathos. — Bob Ross

Yes, this can be said about the stoic practice of negative visualization. I have practiced it quite a lot, which had led me to apathy. The stoic conception of apathy has been called mistaken in English form, more in close line with a passionless state, leading to tranquility. I find it difficult to understand how the stoic sage would have to become somewhat apathetic in every regard to be labeled a sage.

If you are struggling to implement Stoic principles in your life, then try reading (and re-reading) the meditations and implement a robust lifestyle-structure to build self-discipline and self-integrity. Then move from continence to temperance. — Bob Ross

Strange, I went from the Meditations to the Enchiridion, and then to On Desire, and then towards understanding CBT in how it trains the mind to think rationally or less irrationally. To be honest, I haven't really focused on the cardinal virtues of stoicism, as every stoic appeared to me as an individual.

I don't think one needs a philosophy or lifestyle to want drugs or be mentally ill. — Moliere

Both of which would suck, I imagine.

Right.

So there exist some modern cynics, or some rough equivalent there -- all social backgrounds include people who want drugs or are mentally ill because social backgrounds, or philosophies, don't select for those things.

the hippies got some of this right, yet veered off into hedonism, as a virtue. It then sabotaged anything they had to say to take this route. — Shawn

Don't I know. Not that I was ever really full-blown counter-culture, but it definitely was a major influence, and not all for the good.

But then, as you will know, at least some of the counter-culture went East and found roshis and rinpoches to practice under. And at least of those were not corrupted or led astray by the same acid bath of modernity (although some were, as I also know from experience.) But the point was, Buddhism and Vedanta, at least, and some of the Chinese religious philosophies, seem able to have carried forward elements of their culture into the modern world, in a way that Christian culture generally did not.

There is a real allure or reward of stoicisms promise of staying sane or achieving inner calm. — Shawn

First of all, Stoicism makes no such promise.

Stoicism is not a self-help philosophy.

These ancient (and for the most part a lot better) versions of self-help tools are not the ends of Stoicism but tools to help in one's Stoic tasks: the journey towards the good.

Stoicism is about eradicating suffering by detaching from things outside of one's control; and it makes a really good pragmatic philosophy for normal life. — Bob Ross

Again, as above, the purpose of recognizing what is out of one's control is to recognize what is in one's control: one's intention towards the good, utilizing whatever powers and tools one happens to have by circumstance, resulting in the above mentioned journey towards the good from one's starting point.

The purpose of Stoic practice is that (in most circumstances, or then at least most circumstances the ancient Stoics encountered) such practices are useful. Useful for what? Useful to express one's intention towards the good by developing one's skills, faculties and discipline.

For, simply saying "my intention is good" does not make it so, if one's intention really is good then one will actually go and attempt to do good things and as an extension prepare oneself for the task in a reasonable way (i.e not preparing indefinitely and never actually doing what one is preparing for, nor under preparing and so going and failing in a completely foreseeable and preventable way).

Now, the ultimate results of such attempts are not under our control, so one must seek to be detached even from the idea one may actually do any good, but making the honest attempt is under our control.

The very heart of Stoicism is not letting our lack of control over external circumstances (including our own faculties such as a limited supply of "willpower") neither to discourage the pursuit of the good nor form any excuses in making the best attempt towards the good we are able.

There is no absolute moral scale in Stoicism as measured in external accomplishments, as we do not control our circumstances that are a prerequisite for this or that accomplishment nor the part of serendipity involved in doing anything, but essentially the worst one can do is engage in self-deception that one is limited by external circumstances, therefore one cannot do good, when there is not the limitations that one imagines in reality.

Stoicism is not a philosophy of accepting things as they are in the sense of therefore being indifferent and not doing anything, but rather accepting things as they are to then do one's best in whatever real circumstances one finds oneself in: which maybe prison, maybe poverty, maybe severe cognitive limitations, maybe trauma, maybe the emperor or Rome.

The modern version of Stoicism is "give me the strength to endure what cannot be changed and also the delusion of believing I can't really change anything, and also the wisdom to be able to find some pussy from time to time".

It obviously a complete farce.

The best way to see what stoicism is actually teaching is to sit down and think seriously of what good deeds one could have accomplished had one really put a maximum of effort into it: a maximum of self discipline, a maximum development of one's knowledge and abilities, figuring out and employing the best strategy with the greatest courage of execution, and indeed a maximum of self-care in order to best sustain the effort to its expected conclusion. Of course, there are no guarantees as to the results (or even one's actions are in the right direction), but the teaching of Stoicism is to try to figure out what the maximum good you can do is and then some guidance in going and actually doing it.

:100: :ok: :pray:

What has been your experience with stoicism, or what do you think is the issue here? Thoughts and comments welcome. — Shawn

I think Mencius encapsulates much of what Stoics believed. Not sure if Mencius was into a cyclical universe though?

Simplistically, Stoicism = "amor fati"

In the broader sense Stoicism is about cataleptic phantasia; 'true experience' and 'avoiding illusions/delusions'. You can kind of see where the Que sera sera attitude of stoicism came from I guess :)

You can kind of see where the Que sera sera attitude of stoicism came from I guess — I like sushi

I honestly think this modern, essentially commercial, version of Stoicism is pretty much simply due to the fact "stoic" remained a word with a at least some meaning and also some cultural cachet. People do understand what you mean when you say you're being "stoic about it" when faced with some setback.

Same phenomenon happened around the word "zen" coinciding with fascination (again nearly completely commercially driven) with far east spiritualism and mysticism.

If, however, you are not fleeing from the dissatisfaction of modern Western capitalism towards a sort of eastern nirvana of escapist platitudes but are instead convinced of the cultural superiority of modern Western capitalism, all while being equally dissatisfied with one's actual experience of modern Western capitalism, then "stoic" can essentially drop in for "zen" in the essentially the same commodified escapism product.

I.e. a "zen" brand for liberals and a "stoic" brand for conservatives on, as you say, a Que sera sera market place of feel-good intellectual trinkets and good luck charms.

Stoicism doesn't teach apathy: it teaches equanimity. That's a common misconception.

The modern version of Stoicism is "give me the strength to endure what cannot be changed and also the delusion of believing I can't really change anything, and also the wisdom to be able to find some pussy from time to time".

I am not following what you are critiquing of my comment; but I didn't suggest this "modern version" of Stoicism (which, FYI, isn't a version of Stoicism at all).

There is a real allure or reward of stoicisms promise of staying sane or achieving inner calm.
— Shawn

First of all, Stoicism makes no such promise.

Stoicism is not a self-help philosophy.

These ancient (and for the most part a lot better) versions of self-help tools are not the ends of Stoicism but tools to help in one's Stoic tasks: the journey towards the good. — boethius

If I remember right the sign post points to “the good” instead the bad or the lazy because that’s the road which is most inline with our nature (social beings with the capacity of reason), and living inline with our nature leads to wellbeing. Old or new the ultimate goal seems to be wellbeing, which might be characterized as sane and calm.

Old or new the ultimate goal seems to be wellbeing, which might be characterized as sane and calm. — praxis

Thanks for backing me up here; but, my intent was to point at the secondary effect, or a real 'affect' stoicism engenders; that of one becoming calm and more sober. I mean, the Alcoholics Anonymous prayer, derived from Stoic philosophy, is actually mentioned in this thread.

Stoicism doesn't teach apathy: it teaches equanimity. That's a common misconception. — Bob Ross

Regarding which, I think that the affect stoic teaching has on one's behavior is accurately, even in ancient times, one of a dispassionate stance, which they called apatheia. I believe that this would be where Aristotelian virtue ethics somewhat distanced itself from stoic teachings or vice versa.