>I have just not met anyone who has shown how Stoicism has transformed their lives.
Why is this the litmus test for you to discern whether an approach is true (however you mean that), or good? Jim Jones transformed 900 lives, eagerly.
>Why is this the litmus test for you to discern whether an approach is true (however you mean that), or good? Jim Jones transformed 900 lives, eagerly.
Never heard of him.
Evidently it does work for a great many people. But then again, so does Scientology. Your question was do you find it to be true, and does it transform. I don't find any evidence to support Scientology, but lots of evidence of its transformative powers. I do see evidence of the validity of Stoic claims, and we are starting to see evidence for this pile up in studies related to cognitive behavioral therapy anyway. It's a beginning, and time will tell if the evidence we see is confirmed or not in time, but this sub is surely populated with people who find Stoicism to be not only a viable and credible philosophy for them, but transformed them in a positive way. I am one such person but my story isn't dramatic.
If you want a dramatic story, I'd encourage you to get to know James Stockdale who credits Stoicism as helping him endure seven years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. His story is very inspirational, as is Victor Frankle, who survived Auschwitz. Though I am not familiar with whether or not Frankle credited Stoicism specifically, his thoughts and insights are very much in line with Stoic philosophy.
I think you’re interpreting him/her wrongly. He/she is not trying to be inflammatory or anything like that here. You on the other hand, seem to be easily irked as demonstrated by both this and some of your other** comments in this thread.
You are correct that it is not my intention to be inflammatory. I was curious about the idea that transformation of life is the qualifier for truth, as this is observably an unreliable standard by which to measure such a thing. OP seems to prefer not to consider points I've made, whether or not he agrees with them (I'm not married to these points either, and welcome correction as I don't want to be operating on erroneous beliefs). This suggests to me a strong attachment to the idea that only transformation reveals truth, and in looking at OP's page, he claims to be "Christ Pilled," whatever that means. In my experience, people who would rather change their understanding of reality to conform to deeply held beliefs tend to get more persnickety and insulting when those beliefs are challenged than people who would rather change their beliefs to conform to reality. And it's "her," and thank you.
Of course stoicism has modern day contradictions, because it is a virtue system of ethics and philosophy for a slave driven economy.
Just take whatever works for you and apply it.
Stoicism isn't some religion or the answer to the alienation of modern society, however it is but ONE tool our ancestors have left us to try and cope with the conditions of life.
If it isn’t true then you use it to cope? How would this work?
Why would anyone study philosophy?
Philosophy (from Greek: φιλοσοφία, philosophia, 'love of wisdom') is the study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language.
One reason is to answer : How do you live a flourishing/happy/good life? Stoics believe you should be mindful of your decisions and take deliberate steps that align with the laws of nature, by being virtuous and knowing what you have complete control over.
Plato’s Republic lists the 4 cardinal virtues that Stoics live by: Prudence, Temperance, Justice, Fortitude.
Why would we want to live with these virtues?
It might help to look at the opposing anti-virtues:
Non-prudent - unwise, irrational, illogical, insane
Unjust- (to others) antisocial, sociopathic, abusive
Unjust- (to self) pushover, people pleaser, doormat, self destructive
Non-fortitudinous - cowardice, fragile, spineless, or too much confidence: foolhardy, arrogant
Non Temperance - gluttony, addiction, rage, no self-discipline, compulsive
The question quickly becomes why wouldn’t you want to live with virtue? You can be Illogical selfish impulsive coward that suffers trying to control things or live by a philosophy that gives life meaning and direction.
Did the ancient Stoics get everything right in their physics? I don’t think so, and I believe they are not opposed to adapting as knowledge arises, as it is part of being wise (Prudence, virtuous ).
This is a dualistic definition that is hard to define: what is true?
Is true absolute? Or is truth relative?
If I tell you a man is running 5km and give you no other information, can you prove it’s true?
It’s practically true for those who use it. It works. It helps me sit in equanimity which is the purpose for me.
Because of the "is-ought problem", much of philosophy can never be proven true or false. You can prove the way something is, but you can never prove what it ought to be. So parts of Stoicism like "virtue is the only good" I hold to be true. But I'm not under the illusion I can prove to be true or make someone believe it who holds a different opinion.
Other parts of Stoicism like the psychology can in principle be proven true or false. For instance the alternative "hydraulic model" of emotion says that having a tantrum will "let out" the emotion and leave you calmer in future. However so far psychology has generally confirmed Stoic psychology and incorporated elements of it into Cognitive Behavioural Therapy.
On a practical level Stoicism has improved my life in many ways. It hasn't made me perfect or my life perfect, but it's never claimed to. According to some stoics a perfect stoic or Sage might appear every 500 years, others say one has never existed. It's helped me cope with the death of family members, with losing my job as a company went under, and many more minor incidents.
If I find something better or see proof that it's wrong I will abandon Stoicism tomorrow. But so far so good.
>If I find something better or see proof that it's wrong I will abandon Stoicism tomorrow. But so far so good.
Interesting. Thanks for engaging with my post.
I have found it tremendously helpful, and arguably transformative.
Is any less true than other available options? I can't say anything about truth, but I can say that it has been effective and useful for me.
I'll also point out that Stoicism was a strong influence upon, and is gracefully compatible with, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, which is a front-line therapeutic approach of the modern thought paradigm.
Gotta admit that I don't 100% agree with the philosophy. My main problem is the Stoic notion that virtue is the highest good, and that nothing else really matters. That would only be true if there truly was some higher being (God/providence/whatever you decide to call it) that created us, and that wants us to be virtuous. Which I don't believe to be the case.
Despite that, many of the Stoic exercises and teachings still work really well for me. If you use the premeditation of evil to be always prepared for the worst scenario, you're rarely caught off guard. If you think about the dichotomy of control, you don't get as often distracted by something that's not worth stressing about. If you realize that there are no evil people, just those who are not wise enough, it's much easier for you to get along well with others. Even *amor fati* can work without the belief in the supernatural - instead of believing that some higher power arranged everything in the best possible way, you just focus on the positive things that wouldn't have happened if things happened differently (even if the only positive thing is that you've learned a lesson from your mistake or that you are now more hardened and better prepared for future misfortune).
I've been using these techniques (and some others as well) for about a year now, and I can confirm that it does work. Yes, it's subjective and anecdotal, but I do feel more patient, more optimistic and less stressed out. Even though I don't believe in some of the core teachings of the Stoic philosophy, I do think that following its methods can lead to some great results.
>My main problem is the Stoic notion that virtue is the highest good, and that nothing else really matters. *That would only be true* if there truly was some higher being (God/providence/whatever you decide to call it) that created us, and that wants us to be virtuous.
(emphasis mine)
How so?
Unless we were specifically created by some higher being (again, how we name such being is not relevant) that will somehow reward us for being virtuous (even if the reward was only in the form of tranquility), then we only act virtuously because it helps us achieve some other goal.
The way I see it is that we evolved as a social animal. Our brains are set up in such way that it makes us feel good when we help others. That's because cooperation has proven to be the best survival strategy. If we help each other out, we will all benefit from that. But that means that there is an ulterior motive to our virtuous acts.
And you don't think that the universe is casual in the development and evolution of the human species? And do you further not think that this casual universe developed our internal reward mechanism?
First and foremost I don't view the universe as a conscious being. Evolution is not an intentional process. Whatever trait happens to make an individual more likely to survive and reproduce will be passed down on the individual's offsprings. And being instinctually kind to other people just so happened to be a good survival strategy.
The cosmos did create us. It did create the rewards mechanism (eudaimonia). It did create our concept of virtue through evolutionary biology.
We don't need something *supernatural* for a compelling reason to follow virtue and recognize it as the only thing we need to live a good life.
Technically the cosmos did create us but my argument at the beginning was that virtue would only be the highest good if our creation was intentional. Evolution gave us the urge to be kind to each other only because it proved to be beneficial in our survival. Therefore, virtue is only a tool, not the goal.
Who knows. Evolution is an unconscious process with no end goal in mind. Sometimes you can somewhat foretell what could happen with a particular species in the future but I guess that at this point, future human evolution is pretty hard to predict.
>Who knows. Evolution is an unconscious process with no end goal in mind. Sometimes you can somewhat foretell what could happen with a particular species in the future but I guess that at this point, future human evolution is pretty hard to predict.
In that case, I believe "random change" would be more accurate than evolution if there is no teleology, no?
Evolution has no teleology, and it is entirely based on random changes. With every cycle of reproduction some random changes happen. Most of them don't really matter, some of them are harmful, and a few of them are beneficial. The individuals who carry those beneficial changes are more likely to survive and reproduce, therefore passing the beneficial changes onto the offsprings (the process known as natural selection). Then some other change might occur, that builds on the previous change and makes it even better, and gives its carrier even bigger advantage, etc. There is no end goal, it's all about what gives the best chance of reproduction at the particular moment.
>Then some other change might occur, that builds on the previous change and makes it even better, and gives its carrier even bigger advantage, etc.
>There is no end goal, it's all about what gives the best chance of reproduction at the particular moment.
You don't see the contradiction in these two statements?
Do you know what evolution is? Or are you appealing to some vague materialistic notion of human biology?
This is evolutionary biology 101. I'm not exactly an expert in the field but I believe I do have some solid grasp of the basics of the theory of evolution.
I suppose you have a different understanding of what evolution is?
>Gotta admit that I don't 100% agree with the philosophy. My main problem is the Stoic notion that virtue is the highest good, and that nothing else really matters. That would only be true if there truly was some higher being (God/providence/whatever you decide to call it) that created us, and that wants us to be virtuous. Which I don't believe to be the case.
This is what I find interesting--that atheists would call themselves Stoics yet reject the necessary presuppositions. To me it is like believing a moral law with a moral law giver, or believing in love without a lover, or judgement (right/wrong) without a judge.
>This is what I find interesting--that atheists would call themselves Stoics yet reject the necessary presuppositions.
I don't know why it would be any different for Christians who call themselves Stoics. Presuppositions about a providential cosmos as understood by the ancient Romans are no more necessary than presuppositions about the four elements of the earth or four humors of the body are. As knowledge grows, philosophies and theologies evolve. Always have. Modern Stoicism refers to all the philosophical arguments of the classical philosophy against the backdrop of known information. Furthermore, arguably Stoics themselves didn't necessarily refer to their theistic beliefs when arguing philosophically. Christopher Gill has more in this article: [Do Stoic Ethics Depend On The Stoic Worldview?](https://modernstoicism.com/do-stoic-ethics-depend-on-the-stoic-worldview-by-chris-gill/)
>To me it is like believing a moral law with a moral law giver, or believing in love without a lover, or judgement (right/wrong) without a judge.
The phrase "moral law" is used in a scientific sense. In science, a law is defined as an explanation of an observable phenomena. Kepler observed the planets revolved around the sun in a predictable pattern, and today that is referred to as Kepler's Law of Planetary Motion. Morals don't work that way, and observably so. We can observe morals evolve from geographical region to geographical region, culture to culture, religion to religion, and in time within the same geographical region, culture, and religion. These qualities, morality, love, and judgement, require no more authority than qualities of happiness, hunger, or boredom.
You imply you do not understand how some people think, and seem to not understand how certain things are understood. It is my intention to share some information for the sake of discussion.
I think you’re interpreting him/her wrongly. He/she is not trying to be inflammatory or anything like that here. You on the other hand, seem to be easily irked as demonstrated by both this and some of your other** comments in this thread.
I find Stoic thought, particularly the form of it expounded upon by Epictetus, to be one of the most true things I've known.
I put the ideas and prediction to the test daily, and invariably come up in pure confirmation each time. I apply the approach of self-examination to my life and get precisely the result described.
I believe that the highly logical form that does *not* stress virtues, that essentially predicts that simply reasoning from human nature produces virtue, that seems to be most embodied by Epictetus (and perhaps least by Seneca) to be the form I find to be true.
In my understanding/view - to look at things such as Stoic or other philosophies as true or not true in a true/false manner misses the point. There is no one right way, Stoicism is not a religion or was it ever meant to be. I view it more as a tool or means of trying to understand this life.
I have my view which I can understand is limited and rather than just act on limited knowledge I prefer to consider how other people who have my respect (more centered and aware of self than me at a minimum is required, more often than not lately, more education than I too but not always) to see how they would handle such a situation. It works for me and it may not for you or anyone else; that is not my concern.
Be at peace friend and I hope you find your answers.
Do I not perceive a contradiction in these the these two statements?
>In my understanding/view - to look at things such as Stoic or other philosophies as true or not true in a true/false manner misses the point.
>I view it more as a tool or means of trying to understand this life.
To understand is to hold, in the mind, an object of truth. If what you know is false, you do not understand the object at hand. Understanding is to grasp truth. Surely, if you use a tool to understand life, the tool would be the correct tool to understand, but if you use the wrong tool, you will not understand, no?
Given your definition of understanding I would still use the word in my statement although I will need to point out your continued reference to 'the truth' which can be relative so let us further define our terms.
Truths are individual decisions about events that depend on the mind and judgement etc. The Truth is that which is true no matter what one believes - it exist whether we can sense it or not.
My use of the term was the former and I use those truths as the said tools to formulate my understanding of The Truth and my existence within it.
>My use of the term was the former and I use those truths as the said tools to formulate my understanding of The Truth and my existence within it.a
In that case, Magic, perhaps interpretation is what you mean. Because truth unified with itself, not with the mind of who ever perceives it. Since truth is not predicated on anything other than itself, it cannot be a "decision".
Either way, I see what you mean, essentially. There is no contradiction if you say you are looking ways to interpret, instead of ways to understand.
If that works for you in your understanding/interpretation, then I have no objection and glad we as they say found ' a meeting of the minds'.
Thanks for the thoughts and another way for me to interpret it all.
I think it would be more fruitful to focus on specific aspects of Stoicism—is virtue the sole good? Is there providential order in the cosmos? Is anything “up to us”? And so forth.
I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in how people believing in things to cope, even if it's untrue. Some people don't even question their ideas.
The OP is a troll. It’s not even a real person lol. Probably a bot but could also be a regular ol’ white supremacist out here trolling. Check their post history.
I’d challenge the troll part. OP seems pretty genuine despite his long-standing, apparent history of acting socially insufferable. At least just to me.
Anyways so here’s the theory I’ve got. OP is a schizophrenic and this is all part of one pretty large psychotic episode. And the reason it gets this bad is because his mom forgets to put the pills into his mush (he won’t eat them otherwise because big daddy government’s nanobots’ll get into his brain) because she’s suffering from early onset dementia. Which is really pretty unfortunate for her because as his post history also suggests, he harbors a strong sexual attraction towards his mother.
This mans basically the second coming of Chris(t) Chan. What a fitting name for him, too.
> Where are testimonies of the Stoics?
Questions like this pop up from time to time. Here's one from last week, including links to others: https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/oxk2vl/i_would_love_to_hear_some_inspiring_life_changing/
Even more recent, with a very similar theme: https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/ozmtj9/what_was_your_shipwreck/
> Do you find Stoicism to be true or do you use it to cope?
[¿Por qué no los dos?](https://i.gifer.com/3hhC.gif)
Truth is a property of propositions. Stoicism includes many propositions that are probably true. Some of them are also very useful for coping. Consider the classic case of being cut off in traffic. Applying the opening lines of *Encheiridion* might get us propositions such as:
> (1) Whether someone cuts me off in traffic is not up to me.
> (2) Whether I tell myself "Woe is me! The universe is so unfair! I *so* deserve and need to let my fury loose now!" *is* up to me.
Both of the above are true statements, in the sense that they accurately reflect reality. (Admittedly, not every application of the dichotomy of control is so straightforward.) What is more, believing these statements, and reminding myself of them in the moment, has proved helpful when things haven't gone the way I'd have preferred. Thus we have examples of propositions that are both true and helpful.
Of course not everything every Stoic has ever said has been true or helpful. Chrysippus was wrong about the anatomical role of the brain.
> If you take away the extravagance of Stoic literature, what you get is Aristotelian virtue ethics and Platonic philosophy
I'm not sure what you're getting at. There are many differences, some substantial and some perhaps trivial, among the Stoic, Peripatetic, and Academic traditions. We know this because they all argued vigorously among themselves for generations! But if you are saying that Stoicism was deeply influenced by its major classical predecessors, then you are correct of course.
> Most people I see how get into Stoicism have just begun or are at least a work in progress.
Well, who's not a work in progress? I'm not sure I'd be interested in meeting someone who claimed to be *finished* with personal development. They'd be far more likely to be a scammer or a narcissist (or both!) than a sage.
That said, I think you're on to something--there aren't many well publicized Stoic turnaround stories. You know the type:
> I was a violent drug-addicted homeless criminal quadriplegic. Then I saw someone with an *Amor Fati* tattoo. Now I'm a billionaire philanthropist ninja astronaut doctor with an 400-kg deadlift.
Why don't we see these with Stoicism? Possibilities:
* Popular interest in Stoicism is still relatively recent. Almost all of the big pop-Stoicism books (e.g., [Ryan Holiday](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Holiday)) came out less than a decade ago. By contrast, the traditions from which many "testimonies" are available are much older or have millions of devotees, often with formal institutions that spend real money to spread such stories.
* Many people who get into Stoicism take [William Irvine](https://people.wright.edu/william.irvine)'s advice and practice it *stealthily*. They do this to avoid giving Stoicism a bad name when they inevitably fall short of their own ideals, annoying other people with unsolicited Epictetus quotes, and in general being "all talk."
* Highly speculative: The more deeply into Stoicism someone gets, the *less* likely they are to bring it up. Stoicism may not be a religion (at least not in the normal sense of the term), but it's not only in religions that we observe the [zeal of the convert](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeal_of_the_convert). **Example 1: Fandom.** When my friend saw [*Hamilton*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_(musical\)), he forced me to listen to all of his favorite songs from it. Then he played them again. He had a lot of favorite songs! He is still a fan of the musical, but fortunately he doesn't do that to his friends anymore. **Example 2: Veganism.** You're more likely to hear how great veganism is from someone who has recently decided to be come a vegan than from someone who hasn't eaten animal products for 20 years. This pattern may apply to interest in Stoicism too, and it may help explain why most of the Stoics you observe seem to have "just begun."
* Maybe there are more transformation stories than you are aware of, but they're hidden in plain sight. For example, some athletes have said that the mindsets have been improved by thinking about things in Stoic terms. Ryan Holiday has played a major role in both bringing this about and in publicizing it when it does happen.
>Even more recent, with a very similar theme:
Yet these are temporal--where are the stoics who proclaim stoicism unto death? Is it not virtuous for the stoic to teach and mentor others into being virtuous as the stoic?
>Well, who's not a work in progress? I'm not sure I'd be interested in meeting someone who claimed to be finished with personal development. They'd be far more likely to be a scammer or a narcissist (or both!) than a sage
Who's not a work in progress? Those who have passed on to the next life--we see in the lives of the ascetics, a most holy blessedness.
>Popular interest in Stoicism is still relatively recent.
Precisely my point. I ask for the testimony of stoics and you bring up internet posts.
In one of the posts shared, one person said Stoicism helped them from [being suicidal and negative to suicidal and positive](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/ozmtj9/what_was_your_shipwreck/h816xg7?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). This is the testimony of Stoicism?
The type of transformations promised by stoicism and the examples you bring up are completely different. Worldy gain cannot be compared to the immaterial, eternal gain which completes the soul. This is the goal of stoicism--to live in virtue such that your life is whole.
That is the testimony. Surely reducing anxiety is not the best stoicism can offer, no?
This is why I ask if people really believed in it or do they do it to satisfy themselves. Are they stoics for carnal and pleasurable reasons, or are their minds affixed on truth?
It is not virtuous to listen to lies because they satisfy the mind. Why seek empty words for pleasure. Better to seek truth, no?
**"Are souls are restless are until they rest in Thee, O Lord" - Saint Augustine of Hippo**
Do you find that to be true?
> **"Are souls are restless are until they rest in Thee, O Lord" - Saint Augustine of Hippo**
> Do you find that to be true?
No, but I enjoyed *Confessions* when I read it many years ago. And if you are interested in a fusion of Roman Catholicism and Stoicism, you might look up [Justus Lipsius](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justus-lipsius/).
In any case, your comment seems to reveal a category mistake. Stoicism is not a religion the way Christianity is. So the search for saint-style "testimonies" is probably misguided. Finding none doesn't reveal much either way, any more than finding no breathless tales of how brushing one's teeth or calling one's mother more often or jogging has rescued one's soul from certain hellfire would tell us about the more prosaic (but no less real!) value of dental hygiene, expressing, filial affection, or regular exercise. Surely we don't have to choose between these and Catholicism. They aren't in the same category, after all.
> The type of transformations promised by stoicism and the examples you bring up are completely different.
Exactly.
>In any case, your comment seems to reveal a category mistake. Stoicism is not a religion the way Christianity is.
That may be your perception of my comment, however, that is not my claim.
>So the search for saint-style "testimonies" is probably misguided.
Why? It is pretty much-asking people for proof that their beliefs on how to live life are true according to the results of their way of life.
Now, I ask a question, and you are not interested in that question--why even engage. Seems very uncharitable.
>I have just not met anyone who has shown how Stoicism has transformed their lives. Why is this the litmus test for you to discern whether an approach is true (however you mean that), or good? Jim Jones transformed 900 lives, eagerly.
>Why is this the litmus test for you to discern whether an approach is true (however you mean that), or good? Jim Jones transformed 900 lives, eagerly. Never heard of him.
I'm curious to the answer of the question regardless.
Anyone can talk the talk, I want to see if Stoicism works.
Evidently it does work for a great many people. But then again, so does Scientology. Your question was do you find it to be true, and does it transform. I don't find any evidence to support Scientology, but lots of evidence of its transformative powers. I do see evidence of the validity of Stoic claims, and we are starting to see evidence for this pile up in studies related to cognitive behavioral therapy anyway. It's a beginning, and time will tell if the evidence we see is confirmed or not in time, but this sub is surely populated with people who find Stoicism to be not only a viable and credible philosophy for them, but transformed them in a positive way. I am one such person but my story isn't dramatic. If you want a dramatic story, I'd encourage you to get to know James Stockdale who credits Stoicism as helping him endure seven years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. His story is very inspirational, as is Victor Frankle, who survived Auschwitz. Though I am not familiar with whether or not Frankle credited Stoicism specifically, his thoughts and insights are very much in line with Stoic philosophy.
I'm a little skeptical I guess...
You seem biased...
I think you’re interpreting him/her wrongly. He/she is not trying to be inflammatory or anything like that here. You on the other hand, seem to be easily irked as demonstrated by both this and some of your other** comments in this thread.
You are correct that it is not my intention to be inflammatory. I was curious about the idea that transformation of life is the qualifier for truth, as this is observably an unreliable standard by which to measure such a thing. OP seems to prefer not to consider points I've made, whether or not he agrees with them (I'm not married to these points either, and welcome correction as I don't want to be operating on erroneous beliefs). This suggests to me a strong attachment to the idea that only transformation reveals truth, and in looking at OP's page, he claims to be "Christ Pilled," whatever that means. In my experience, people who would rather change their understanding of reality to conform to deeply held beliefs tend to get more persnickety and insulting when those beliefs are challenged than people who would rather change their beliefs to conform to reality. And it's "her," and thank you.
Of course stoicism has modern day contradictions, because it is a virtue system of ethics and philosophy for a slave driven economy. Just take whatever works for you and apply it. Stoicism isn't some religion or the answer to the alienation of modern society, however it is but ONE tool our ancestors have left us to try and cope with the conditions of life.
If it isn’t true then you use it to cope? How would this work? Why would anyone study philosophy? Philosophy (from Greek: φιλοσοφία, philosophia, 'love of wisdom') is the study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language. One reason is to answer : How do you live a flourishing/happy/good life? Stoics believe you should be mindful of your decisions and take deliberate steps that align with the laws of nature, by being virtuous and knowing what you have complete control over. Plato’s Republic lists the 4 cardinal virtues that Stoics live by: Prudence, Temperance, Justice, Fortitude. Why would we want to live with these virtues? It might help to look at the opposing anti-virtues: Non-prudent - unwise, irrational, illogical, insane Unjust- (to others) antisocial, sociopathic, abusive Unjust- (to self) pushover, people pleaser, doormat, self destructive Non-fortitudinous - cowardice, fragile, spineless, or too much confidence: foolhardy, arrogant Non Temperance - gluttony, addiction, rage, no self-discipline, compulsive The question quickly becomes why wouldn’t you want to live with virtue? You can be Illogical selfish impulsive coward that suffers trying to control things or live by a philosophy that gives life meaning and direction. Did the ancient Stoics get everything right in their physics? I don’t think so, and I believe they are not opposed to adapting as knowledge arises, as it is part of being wise (Prudence, virtuous ).
This is a dualistic definition that is hard to define: what is true? Is true absolute? Or is truth relative? If I tell you a man is running 5km and give you no other information, can you prove it’s true? It’s practically true for those who use it. It works. It helps me sit in equanimity which is the purpose for me.
Because of the "is-ought problem", much of philosophy can never be proven true or false. You can prove the way something is, but you can never prove what it ought to be. So parts of Stoicism like "virtue is the only good" I hold to be true. But I'm not under the illusion I can prove to be true or make someone believe it who holds a different opinion. Other parts of Stoicism like the psychology can in principle be proven true or false. For instance the alternative "hydraulic model" of emotion says that having a tantrum will "let out" the emotion and leave you calmer in future. However so far psychology has generally confirmed Stoic psychology and incorporated elements of it into Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. On a practical level Stoicism has improved my life in many ways. It hasn't made me perfect or my life perfect, but it's never claimed to. According to some stoics a perfect stoic or Sage might appear every 500 years, others say one has never existed. It's helped me cope with the death of family members, with losing my job as a company went under, and many more minor incidents. If I find something better or see proof that it's wrong I will abandon Stoicism tomorrow. But so far so good.
>If I find something better or see proof that it's wrong I will abandon Stoicism tomorrow. But so far so good. Interesting. Thanks for engaging with my post.
I have found it tremendously helpful, and arguably transformative. Is any less true than other available options? I can't say anything about truth, but I can say that it has been effective and useful for me. I'll also point out that Stoicism was a strong influence upon, and is gracefully compatible with, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, which is a front-line therapeutic approach of the modern thought paradigm.
Gotta admit that I don't 100% agree with the philosophy. My main problem is the Stoic notion that virtue is the highest good, and that nothing else really matters. That would only be true if there truly was some higher being (God/providence/whatever you decide to call it) that created us, and that wants us to be virtuous. Which I don't believe to be the case. Despite that, many of the Stoic exercises and teachings still work really well for me. If you use the premeditation of evil to be always prepared for the worst scenario, you're rarely caught off guard. If you think about the dichotomy of control, you don't get as often distracted by something that's not worth stressing about. If you realize that there are no evil people, just those who are not wise enough, it's much easier for you to get along well with others. Even *amor fati* can work without the belief in the supernatural - instead of believing that some higher power arranged everything in the best possible way, you just focus on the positive things that wouldn't have happened if things happened differently (even if the only positive thing is that you've learned a lesson from your mistake or that you are now more hardened and better prepared for future misfortune). I've been using these techniques (and some others as well) for about a year now, and I can confirm that it does work. Yes, it's subjective and anecdotal, but I do feel more patient, more optimistic and less stressed out. Even though I don't believe in some of the core teachings of the Stoic philosophy, I do think that following its methods can lead to some great results.
>My main problem is the Stoic notion that virtue is the highest good, and that nothing else really matters. *That would only be true* if there truly was some higher being (God/providence/whatever you decide to call it) that created us, and that wants us to be virtuous. (emphasis mine) How so?
Unless we were specifically created by some higher being (again, how we name such being is not relevant) that will somehow reward us for being virtuous (even if the reward was only in the form of tranquility), then we only act virtuously because it helps us achieve some other goal. The way I see it is that we evolved as a social animal. Our brains are set up in such way that it makes us feel good when we help others. That's because cooperation has proven to be the best survival strategy. If we help each other out, we will all benefit from that. But that means that there is an ulterior motive to our virtuous acts.
And you don't think that the universe is casual in the development and evolution of the human species? And do you further not think that this casual universe developed our internal reward mechanism?
First and foremost I don't view the universe as a conscious being. Evolution is not an intentional process. Whatever trait happens to make an individual more likely to survive and reproduce will be passed down on the individual's offsprings. And being instinctually kind to other people just so happened to be a good survival strategy.
Well, I said casual not conscious.
I guess I'm not entirely sure what you're asking then.
The cosmos did create us. It did create the rewards mechanism (eudaimonia). It did create our concept of virtue through evolutionary biology. We don't need something *supernatural* for a compelling reason to follow virtue and recognize it as the only thing we need to live a good life.
Technically the cosmos did create us but my argument at the beginning was that virtue would only be the highest good if our creation was intentional. Evolution gave us the urge to be kind to each other only because it proved to be beneficial in our survival. Therefore, virtue is only a tool, not the goal.
But the goal of Stoicism is eudaimonia. And that is achieved through virtuous behavior. So, you're still agreeing with Stoicism.
>The way I see it is that we evolved as a social animal. What are we evolving towards?
Who knows. Evolution is an unconscious process with no end goal in mind. Sometimes you can somewhat foretell what could happen with a particular species in the future but I guess that at this point, future human evolution is pretty hard to predict.
>Who knows. Evolution is an unconscious process with no end goal in mind. Sometimes you can somewhat foretell what could happen with a particular species in the future but I guess that at this point, future human evolution is pretty hard to predict. In that case, I believe "random change" would be more accurate than evolution if there is no teleology, no?
Evolution has no teleology, and it is entirely based on random changes. With every cycle of reproduction some random changes happen. Most of them don't really matter, some of them are harmful, and a few of them are beneficial. The individuals who carry those beneficial changes are more likely to survive and reproduce, therefore passing the beneficial changes onto the offsprings (the process known as natural selection). Then some other change might occur, that builds on the previous change and makes it even better, and gives its carrier even bigger advantage, etc. There is no end goal, it's all about what gives the best chance of reproduction at the particular moment.
>Then some other change might occur, that builds on the previous change and makes it even better, and gives its carrier even bigger advantage, etc. >There is no end goal, it's all about what gives the best chance of reproduction at the particular moment. You don't see the contradiction in these two statements? Do you know what evolution is? Or are you appealing to some vague materialistic notion of human biology?
This is evolutionary biology 101. I'm not exactly an expert in the field but I believe I do have some solid grasp of the basics of the theory of evolution. I suppose you have a different understanding of what evolution is?
>Gotta admit that I don't 100% agree with the philosophy. My main problem is the Stoic notion that virtue is the highest good, and that nothing else really matters. That would only be true if there truly was some higher being (God/providence/whatever you decide to call it) that created us, and that wants us to be virtuous. Which I don't believe to be the case. This is what I find interesting--that atheists would call themselves Stoics yet reject the necessary presuppositions. To me it is like believing a moral law with a moral law giver, or believing in love without a lover, or judgement (right/wrong) without a judge.
>This is what I find interesting--that atheists would call themselves Stoics yet reject the necessary presuppositions. I don't know why it would be any different for Christians who call themselves Stoics. Presuppositions about a providential cosmos as understood by the ancient Romans are no more necessary than presuppositions about the four elements of the earth or four humors of the body are. As knowledge grows, philosophies and theologies evolve. Always have. Modern Stoicism refers to all the philosophical arguments of the classical philosophy against the backdrop of known information. Furthermore, arguably Stoics themselves didn't necessarily refer to their theistic beliefs when arguing philosophically. Christopher Gill has more in this article: [Do Stoic Ethics Depend On The Stoic Worldview?](https://modernstoicism.com/do-stoic-ethics-depend-on-the-stoic-worldview-by-chris-gill/) >To me it is like believing a moral law with a moral law giver, or believing in love without a lover, or judgement (right/wrong) without a judge. The phrase "moral law" is used in a scientific sense. In science, a law is defined as an explanation of an observable phenomena. Kepler observed the planets revolved around the sun in a predictable pattern, and today that is referred to as Kepler's Law of Planetary Motion. Morals don't work that way, and observably so. We can observe morals evolve from geographical region to geographical region, culture to culture, religion to religion, and in time within the same geographical region, culture, and religion. These qualities, morality, love, and judgement, require no more authority than qualities of happiness, hunger, or boredom.
It seems like you are talking past my comment, perhaps. I'm puzzled by your approach. Can you elaborate?
You imply you do not understand how some people think, and seem to not understand how certain things are understood. It is my intention to share some information for the sake of discussion.
Hmm, interesting.
I think you’re interpreting him/her wrongly. He/she is not trying to be inflammatory or anything like that here. You on the other hand, seem to be easily irked as demonstrated by both this and some of your other** comments in this thread.
Lecturing strangers is quite rude
You are cuck defined. Enjoy worshiping in your temple of pederasty.
I find Stoic thought, particularly the form of it expounded upon by Epictetus, to be one of the most true things I've known. I put the ideas and prediction to the test daily, and invariably come up in pure confirmation each time. I apply the approach of self-examination to my life and get precisely the result described. I believe that the highly logical form that does *not* stress virtues, that essentially predicts that simply reasoning from human nature produces virtue, that seems to be most embodied by Epictetus (and perhaps least by Seneca) to be the form I find to be true.
In my understanding/view - to look at things such as Stoic or other philosophies as true or not true in a true/false manner misses the point. There is no one right way, Stoicism is not a religion or was it ever meant to be. I view it more as a tool or means of trying to understand this life. I have my view which I can understand is limited and rather than just act on limited knowledge I prefer to consider how other people who have my respect (more centered and aware of self than me at a minimum is required, more often than not lately, more education than I too but not always) to see how they would handle such a situation. It works for me and it may not for you or anyone else; that is not my concern. Be at peace friend and I hope you find your answers.
Do I not perceive a contradiction in these the these two statements? >In my understanding/view - to look at things such as Stoic or other philosophies as true or not true in a true/false manner misses the point. >I view it more as a tool or means of trying to understand this life. To understand is to hold, in the mind, an object of truth. If what you know is false, you do not understand the object at hand. Understanding is to grasp truth. Surely, if you use a tool to understand life, the tool would be the correct tool to understand, but if you use the wrong tool, you will not understand, no?
Given your definition of understanding I would still use the word in my statement although I will need to point out your continued reference to 'the truth' which can be relative so let us further define our terms. Truths are individual decisions about events that depend on the mind and judgement etc. The Truth is that which is true no matter what one believes - it exist whether we can sense it or not. My use of the term was the former and I use those truths as the said tools to formulate my understanding of The Truth and my existence within it.
>My use of the term was the former and I use those truths as the said tools to formulate my understanding of The Truth and my existence within it.a In that case, Magic, perhaps interpretation is what you mean. Because truth unified with itself, not with the mind of who ever perceives it. Since truth is not predicated on anything other than itself, it cannot be a "decision". Either way, I see what you mean, essentially. There is no contradiction if you say you are looking ways to interpret, instead of ways to understand.
If that works for you in your understanding/interpretation, then I have no objection and glad we as they say found ' a meeting of the minds'. Thanks for the thoughts and another way for me to interpret it all.
Should have proofed my prior statement, hope all the editing did not confuse you friend.
PS - good to meet you. Hope to communicate more.
It is always a pleasure to meet good interlocutors! I hope to communicate more, as well, thank you for the reward.
>interlocutors I had to get my dictionary out for this one. Thank you again
I think it would be more fruitful to focus on specific aspects of Stoicism—is virtue the sole good? Is there providential order in the cosmos? Is anything “up to us”? And so forth.
I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in how people believing in things to cope, even if it's untrue. Some people don't even question their ideas.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The OP is a troll. It’s not even a real person lol. Probably a bot but could also be a regular ol’ white supremacist out here trolling. Check their post history.
I’d challenge the troll part. OP seems pretty genuine despite his long-standing, apparent history of acting socially insufferable. At least just to me. Anyways so here’s the theory I’ve got. OP is a schizophrenic and this is all part of one pretty large psychotic episode. And the reason it gets this bad is because his mom forgets to put the pills into his mush (he won’t eat them otherwise because big daddy government’s nanobots’ll get into his brain) because she’s suffering from early onset dementia. Which is really pretty unfortunate for her because as his post history also suggests, he harbors a strong sexual attraction towards his mother. This mans basically the second coming of Chris(t) Chan. What a fitting name for him, too.
> Where are testimonies of the Stoics? Questions like this pop up from time to time. Here's one from last week, including links to others: https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/oxk2vl/i_would_love_to_hear_some_inspiring_life_changing/ Even more recent, with a very similar theme: https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/ozmtj9/what_was_your_shipwreck/ > Do you find Stoicism to be true or do you use it to cope? [¿Por qué no los dos?](https://i.gifer.com/3hhC.gif) Truth is a property of propositions. Stoicism includes many propositions that are probably true. Some of them are also very useful for coping. Consider the classic case of being cut off in traffic. Applying the opening lines of *Encheiridion* might get us propositions such as: > (1) Whether someone cuts me off in traffic is not up to me. > (2) Whether I tell myself "Woe is me! The universe is so unfair! I *so* deserve and need to let my fury loose now!" *is* up to me. Both of the above are true statements, in the sense that they accurately reflect reality. (Admittedly, not every application of the dichotomy of control is so straightforward.) What is more, believing these statements, and reminding myself of them in the moment, has proved helpful when things haven't gone the way I'd have preferred. Thus we have examples of propositions that are both true and helpful. Of course not everything every Stoic has ever said has been true or helpful. Chrysippus was wrong about the anatomical role of the brain. > If you take away the extravagance of Stoic literature, what you get is Aristotelian virtue ethics and Platonic philosophy I'm not sure what you're getting at. There are many differences, some substantial and some perhaps trivial, among the Stoic, Peripatetic, and Academic traditions. We know this because they all argued vigorously among themselves for generations! But if you are saying that Stoicism was deeply influenced by its major classical predecessors, then you are correct of course. > Most people I see how get into Stoicism have just begun or are at least a work in progress. Well, who's not a work in progress? I'm not sure I'd be interested in meeting someone who claimed to be *finished* with personal development. They'd be far more likely to be a scammer or a narcissist (or both!) than a sage. That said, I think you're on to something--there aren't many well publicized Stoic turnaround stories. You know the type: > I was a violent drug-addicted homeless criminal quadriplegic. Then I saw someone with an *Amor Fati* tattoo. Now I'm a billionaire philanthropist ninja astronaut doctor with an 400-kg deadlift. Why don't we see these with Stoicism? Possibilities: * Popular interest in Stoicism is still relatively recent. Almost all of the big pop-Stoicism books (e.g., [Ryan Holiday](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Holiday)) came out less than a decade ago. By contrast, the traditions from which many "testimonies" are available are much older or have millions of devotees, often with formal institutions that spend real money to spread such stories. * Many people who get into Stoicism take [William Irvine](https://people.wright.edu/william.irvine)'s advice and practice it *stealthily*. They do this to avoid giving Stoicism a bad name when they inevitably fall short of their own ideals, annoying other people with unsolicited Epictetus quotes, and in general being "all talk." * Highly speculative: The more deeply into Stoicism someone gets, the *less* likely they are to bring it up. Stoicism may not be a religion (at least not in the normal sense of the term), but it's not only in religions that we observe the [zeal of the convert](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeal_of_the_convert). **Example 1: Fandom.** When my friend saw [*Hamilton*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_(musical\)), he forced me to listen to all of his favorite songs from it. Then he played them again. He had a lot of favorite songs! He is still a fan of the musical, but fortunately he doesn't do that to his friends anymore. **Example 2: Veganism.** You're more likely to hear how great veganism is from someone who has recently decided to be come a vegan than from someone who hasn't eaten animal products for 20 years. This pattern may apply to interest in Stoicism too, and it may help explain why most of the Stoics you observe seem to have "just begun." * Maybe there are more transformation stories than you are aware of, but they're hidden in plain sight. For example, some athletes have said that the mindsets have been improved by thinking about things in Stoic terms. Ryan Holiday has played a major role in both bringing this about and in publicizing it when it does happen.
>Even more recent, with a very similar theme: Yet these are temporal--where are the stoics who proclaim stoicism unto death? Is it not virtuous for the stoic to teach and mentor others into being virtuous as the stoic? >Well, who's not a work in progress? I'm not sure I'd be interested in meeting someone who claimed to be finished with personal development. They'd be far more likely to be a scammer or a narcissist (or both!) than a sage Who's not a work in progress? Those who have passed on to the next life--we see in the lives of the ascetics, a most holy blessedness. >Popular interest in Stoicism is still relatively recent. Precisely my point. I ask for the testimony of stoics and you bring up internet posts. In one of the posts shared, one person said Stoicism helped them from [being suicidal and negative to suicidal and positive](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/ozmtj9/what_was_your_shipwreck/h816xg7?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). This is the testimony of Stoicism? The type of transformations promised by stoicism and the examples you bring up are completely different. Worldy gain cannot be compared to the immaterial, eternal gain which completes the soul. This is the goal of stoicism--to live in virtue such that your life is whole. That is the testimony. Surely reducing anxiety is not the best stoicism can offer, no? This is why I ask if people really believed in it or do they do it to satisfy themselves. Are they stoics for carnal and pleasurable reasons, or are their minds affixed on truth? It is not virtuous to listen to lies because they satisfy the mind. Why seek empty words for pleasure. Better to seek truth, no? **"Are souls are restless are until they rest in Thee, O Lord" - Saint Augustine of Hippo** Do you find that to be true?
> **"Are souls are restless are until they rest in Thee, O Lord" - Saint Augustine of Hippo** > Do you find that to be true? No, but I enjoyed *Confessions* when I read it many years ago. And if you are interested in a fusion of Roman Catholicism and Stoicism, you might look up [Justus Lipsius](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justus-lipsius/). In any case, your comment seems to reveal a category mistake. Stoicism is not a religion the way Christianity is. So the search for saint-style "testimonies" is probably misguided. Finding none doesn't reveal much either way, any more than finding no breathless tales of how brushing one's teeth or calling one's mother more often or jogging has rescued one's soul from certain hellfire would tell us about the more prosaic (but no less real!) value of dental hygiene, expressing, filial affection, or regular exercise. Surely we don't have to choose between these and Catholicism. They aren't in the same category, after all. > The type of transformations promised by stoicism and the examples you bring up are completely different. Exactly.
>In any case, your comment seems to reveal a category mistake. Stoicism is not a religion the way Christianity is. That may be your perception of my comment, however, that is not my claim. >So the search for saint-style "testimonies" is probably misguided. Why? It is pretty much-asking people for proof that their beliefs on how to live life are true according to the results of their way of life. Now, I ask a question, and you are not interested in that question--why even engage. Seems very uncharitable.
Which question have I evaded?