The CRUELTY of STOICISM | Did Aurelius & Seneca Promote Philosophical Stockholm Syndrome?
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 01. 2021
- Stoicism is wildly popular. You can’t go far on ye old Instagram without being confronted with Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, Epictetus, or one of their less intellectual acolytes, telling you to get your life together, subdue your passions, control yourself and just be happy. Despite its wild popularity among self-help writers, life-coaches, and social media, the Ancient philosophy often cuts against what we would consider to be immoral. In fact There are some things in Stoic teaching that are genuinely horrifying, things that we should not ignore.
I want to tell you a story you’re probably not going find in a self-help book or a life-style blog. It comes from Seneca’s letter LXXVII to Lucilius.
Seneca tells us about a man named Tullius Marcellinnus who came down with a disease. This disease was not incurable, but it was protracted and it seems very troublesome. Seneca tells us that Marcellinnus began to contemplate suicide. A Stoic friend encourages Marcellinus to go forward with it, and Marcellinus takes his advice.
Seneca concludes by telling Lucillius that his example has, quote, ‘practical value for the future.’ Meaning presumably that we should take this as an example to accept death, welcome it, and face it cheerfully. And I think there’s actually some good advice here concerning death that I plan to talk about in a future video. But there’s an obvious moral problem for us here on the surface, and that is suicide. And not just the act itself, but actually the encouragement to press someone who is hesitant to take his own life. And it’s not like we’re talking about a terminal illness. It’s an illness that Marcellinus could have recovered from-he could have gone on to live-but the Stoic philosopher says, no, it’s not really worth it.
And I think that’s really the biggest problem here: it’s the devaluation of life. The idea that quote, ‘It is not an important matter to live,” as another translation renders it. The stoic essentially reduces life down to eating, sleeping, and reproducing, which by the way many scientists, and pop-reductionists do as well. Which I find insidious. I have to quote Jesus and ask, “is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing!?” The stoic equates us with animals who similarly eat, sleep, and reproduce. But as Jesus asks, “Are we not worth much more than birds?” Is there not something profoundly meaningful and valuable in the mystery of consciousness, of intelligent thought which, in the great mystery of being we both produce and are produced by?
Personally, I am all in favor of putting a small value on things like wealth, possessions, career-even pleasures and creature comforts-but I’m not willing to similarly devalue the life of human beings. Nor am I willing to say, like the Stoics, that because these things are inevitable, they are therefore to be accepted as good or right. Marcus Aurelius says in book IV of his Meditations that, “All things that happen, happen aright.” So just pause a moment and think of all the worst atrocities, and crimes committed against human beings. For stoics, those things are good. They are right, because they are ordained by the divine logos. And because you should conform your will to the divine logos, you should therefore love the things that happen to you. Again, Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book VII.
“Love that only which happens to thee and is spun with the thread of thy destiny. For what is more suitable?”
I admit that I have a grudging respect for this approach to life. Amour fati-love your fate. Love what has happened to you. As Nietzsche describes, it is the hard times that are most fruitful. And I appreciate the Stoic logic which says even though things appear evil, it logically follows that if God, or the divine logos, the Ens Realisimum, decrees it, it must therefore be good, even if we can’t quite understand that. But I cannot accept the part of Stoicism that says that everything that happens is just. I would rather believe in a Leibnizian, deterministic God who decrees evil that good may come, rather than believe that all that happens is in and of itself good.
#Stoic #MarcusAurelius #Philosophy #Stoicism
Music
Seeker, Kai Engel
freemusicarchive.org/music/Ka...
Tumult, Kai Engel
freemusicarchive.org/music/Ka...
With a society so bent on getting away from everything painful and offensive, a philosophy that points out the values in those things seems to be a powerful medicine. While Stoicism may have flaws in its totality, a lot of its core principles are very applicable to modernity.
Ha, stoicism is treating the symptom and ignoring the evildoers who cause the suffering.
Never let the evildoers leave your sight, or you are worse than a slave.
@@soccom8341576 Who says? You? You have a very limited understanding of this philosophy and the people who practice it. It doesn't teach us to ignore the root of issues. It teaches us to not allow our emotions or our perceptions to control our reasoning. One could say allowing your emotions to rule you is also a form of self-slavery, and I prefer not to let that happen. Best of luck to you and your negative view.
@@TJ-ve8sv Imagine thinking you can think your way out of this. You can't.
@@TJ-ve8sv stop thinking
@@Dwightpower88 What does this even mean?
"The things that don't kill you make you very very weak."
-Norm Macdonald
^this guy has a doghouse
@@Dyarmo710 more of a comment, really
The things that don't kill me better run fast!!!
Now that’s wayyy outta line.. but I say two wrongs don’t make a right
Friedrich Nietzsche, the German philosopher, famously said: "That which does not kill us makes us stronger." This notion found life beyond Nietzsche's-which is ironic, his having been rather short and miserable-and it continues to resonate within American culture.
In Daily Stoic's 30 minute video on Seneca, he mentions this devaluation. He uses tucking your children into bed as an example, that imagining their loss does not prompt you to value them less but actually to value them more because you have accepted that you have less control over their fate than you think. The example you bring up is the most nihilistic stoic parable I've heard so far, I'm fairly new to this but I feel that that is an exception rather than a deep metaphysical property of stoicism.
In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche heavily criticizes stoicism as a philosophy indifferent to life without empathy, justice, and more. It made me think that Stoicism if practiced 100%, is the repression of emotions and giving only value to what the Stoics deem for good, basically, a philosophy that values only certain morals and nothing more. Completely different than nihilism but from an existentialist point of view, equally life-denying. That being said, there are lessons taken from any philosophy; the danger lies in treating a philosophy as the ultimate one.
@@Petran892 very well said
@@Petran892 I'll have to read his take on it. Very odd that he would say stoicism is devoid of justice, as justice is one of the four virtues of stoicism. But I doubt Nietzsche would have missed that in whatever study or analysis of stoicism that he did. Most of the talk of stoicism that I see floating around the internet and in books seems to focus on using it to preserve your empathy and morality in the face of hardship. But it could be that this is just what we see filtered through the modern lens.
@@Petran892 Even Nietzche has a complete misunderstanding of stoicism. One just has to look at the very very basics like the four cardinal virtues to know he was wrong.
@@DaveCollins123 I don't know. I haven't gotten into stoicism or read much of Nietzsche to argue about it. I just read in beyond good and evil the passage where he criticizes stoicism. Moreover, he criticizes that stoics said that they live according to nature.
I'm not sure if this interpretation falls in line with all the stoics. Marcus Aurelius Meditations seemed to encourage abandonment of attachment to the things in your life, not the value of them. He describes the people in his life that he learnt from and says that they could enjoy pleasures and comforts and friends, but not be saddened by their absence. This supports the quotes you made in the video about the Aurelius saying basically "go with the flow". To not fight the current of life. Things and people come and go in your life and you bring yourself suffering if you form an attachment rather than enjoying their presence when they are available and letting them go when it is time.
I'd say Marcus Aurelius' Stoic philosophy was one of acceptance, not devaluing everything so you can avoid loss, but to enjoy what life brings you as much as possible in a way that does not form attachment.
You cannot control when a loved one is to die. The loss of a loved one is the cause of immense suffering and Marcus Aurelius' stoicism says that enjoying the time you had with them, loving them and cherishing their memory is as much as you can do. If, like the majority of people, you refuse to accept the things outside of your control and refuse to let go of your attachment - that is the root of the suffering.
They saw that people thrash and resist and fight things that they have absolutely no control over. Saw the foolishness of it and concluded that we need to accept 'logos' or fate or whatever it is we want to call it. I don't think they meant logos was 'good' - just that it is the way things happen and it's a cause of suffering to try and deny or wish it were different. It all comes back down to acceptance I think and not devaluing.
Definitely 👍 I thought it was a bad evaluation of Stoic Philosophy even though it points out in the headline, its the dark side, i still think its a bad evaluation. It's definitely not about devaluing people, but things, material possessions etc and value we put on these things and how we let them rule our lives or ruin our equilibrium and tranquillity worrying about things that really don't matter or are out of our control. It's about self control and discipline, not letting our emotions dictate our actions by running on autopilot, acting before we think, its about reigning in our primal emotions and controlling our reactions. Being the best version of ourselves and living in accordance with our nature. It's when we do things that goes against our own moral code that upsets our equilibrium and tranquillity. Whether it's through drink and drugs, indulgence, pursuits of pleasure and losing control, we upset the harmony of our own nature. Eudaimonia. They say to be truly happy we have to be consistent with living in accordance with our own moral code, ethics and nature, to be present conscious and avoid running on autopilot and doing things that upsets our equilibrium. How we react to things can ruin our equilibrium, we can do or say things we regret. Stoicism is a good tool for that reason. Cognitive behavioural therapy is based on Stoic Philosophy 😎👍
Attachment and value are synonyms.
Epictetus also convey somewhat same message, he knows that indifference (things outside of your control) have values, that's why there's two categories of indifferent: Preferred Indifferent, and Dispreferred Indifferent. The Stoics always put Virtue at the highest, and the only thing humans should strive for, but they would still choose to be a good man with money rather than be a good man without money.
my english isn't that great I hope you understand
Apparently some people have misinterpreted Stoic philosophy as being just about thinking and encouraging apathy. They have clearly not understood what has been said, or are regurgitating cherry picked quotes. Stoicism abhors apathy and inaction. It demands caring about people. You cannot be an actively practicing Stoic and not care about people or passively let evil happen.
@@cas343 No, not really. You can be thankful and treasure something without determining never to lose control over it. There is a difference between obsession and appreciation.
“ The stoic equates us with animals who similarly eat, sleep, and reproduce.” This is partially true, but that’s it. It’s partially true. A Stoic would say that we are different from other animals from the fact that we can use our reason (logos) and live in accordance with nature by cultivating the cardinal virtues and focusing on things that are under our complete control. If you have a source that suggests otherwise, then I would like to see it.
Regarding the question of suicide, I would refer you to Seneca’s 78th letter where he says that there are times where even to live is an act of bravery :)
+1
if you can't change your situation, change the way you think about it.
And this helps me how when standing on the roof of a burning building?
i must remember that in case i fall in a cesspool
@@liammurphy2725 Well at least you won't die of cold :P
@@liammurphy2725 If you keep your calm you"ll be able to find a way or just by not panicking you have a higher chance of survival.
Or get in a steam bath and don’t get out.
I like the part of stoicism that says you should only worry about things, that you can control instead of worrying about those you cannot change anyways, but I never thought about it as apathy. You should still reflect about the ways it affects you and how to deal with it emotionally, you just should not fall victim to it. There are stoics who look at it like that, but there are also many stoics, who think in these strange ways that you describe. The same way buddism does btw.
According to Francis Bacon the stoics told that the secret of peace is not to make our achievements equal to our desires, but to lower our desires to the level of our achievements. Just to clarify I agree with you, and Aurelius has some really profound words. But there are those who mistake complacency for mental temperance.
Serenity prayer, am I right?
I hope the Buddhism part is a joke
The irony of it it's: those who worry too much ends up being more apathetic than those who care only about their range.
@@hannibalburgers477 I have to admit my knowledge on buddhism is somewhat superficial, but there are at least some interpretations that see the goal of nirvana as being apathetic. In that interpretation you basically want to collect neither good nor bad karma to break the rebirth-circle and achieve askesis. But that might just be one rather weird interpretation.
Perhaps the single most important message of stoicism is to be oneself here and now. Not to obey what others say or teach.
And that includes what Aurelius, Seneca and the others taught. They were wise men, I agree, but not infallible. They lived in an era when medicine and psychology were not as developed as today. So, even with such masters, we must take what we can use and drop the rest. Stoicism is not a religion where ALL that the founder/master/guru etc. said MUST be followed else this is a sin. Stoicism is a tool ; and like other tools, it is to be used when useful and it can (and should) be replaced when better, improved versions appear. He who follows the master to the letter is not a disciple : he is an enslaved blind religious follower. He doesn't think ; he obeys.
This is probably what Aurelius and Seneca would teach us.
Thanks for this perspective.
“Be a man, and do not follow after me!” -Goethe
@@EmpireoftheMind But if we took Goethe's advise and be men, wouldn't we be following after him?
@@sumanadasawijayapala5372 I don’t think ‘agreement’ necessarily equals ‘following.’
On the worth of life:
life is valuable ... isnt that egocentric to believe that? Isnt that selfinterestingly made up? Whats so valuable about being alive? You are part of the big house, nature. You contribute. Every action has a cause and the absense of action aswell. You could basically die as an infant and still be valuable because you return to earth which nurtures plants, trees and animals, preators, man himself again. Yes that is valuable but is it any different from anything else on this earth? Also your death causes pain and misery to your parents. Is that valuable? Maybe? Maybe not... they can also drown in their misery filled with grief ...they can also overcome the loss and learn, grow mentally, spiritually ...
Is that valuable? Maybe? Its up to them to learn or drown. Its up to you how to deal with events. Life is life. Neither worth anything nor worthless. I think this perspective to be usefull: Life and death belong together. Try to think beyond good and evil beyond life and death beyond “time“. Forget the line... its not a line ... its many dots, many moments alined. So is life. So is music. So is death.
Now what do the stoics promote? Honor! Courage! Strength and adversity! Why? Its what allows us to break behaviours its what allows us to not stagnate in one moment. In one big depression. It is what makes you not an NPC but the PC himself. You decide and you carry the consequences. And there you will notice at some point that there is a right way to live... this is what the stoics promoted. There is a right way to live if you remember the dots. If you managed to recognize the pattern. Deep down we know whats right and whats wrong for it has been trained over and over again. Its not the same right for everyone for not everyone had the same training. But those who know do not need an explanation and those who do not know wouldnt want to understand.
@@EmpireoftheMind I sometimes read and hear a few translations regarding a very particular quote from Star Wars, particularly from Obi-Wan: "Who's the more foolish, the fool or the fool that follows him?" What are your thoughts on this quote that in my opinion gets ignored often?
I don't understand your statement that the Stoic essentially reduces life down to eating, sleeping and reproducing. My understanding is that Stoic philosophy demands social involvement, a deep caring about the world and the people in it and a constant striving to behave virtuously, even while it accepts that our individual lives are not so grand and important by themselves. What supports your assertion?
The idea that you have to remove all value of things in order not to suffer their loss is also confusing. My understanding is that things are still valuable and should be valued while they are part of our lives, but that the acceptance that they will pass and that passing is out of our control is what allows us not to suffer when they are lost.
Similarly confusing - atrocities are not considered good and right; atrocities are not Just so fail the test of virtue. Love that things happen such that you are provided with a time to act virtuously, but there's nothing that says you need to lobotomize yourself when it comes to dealing with the evil in the world. Perhaps the confusion comes with conflating acceptence of what happens to ourselves with acceptance of what happens in society in general? And the erroneous idea that acceptance means inaction?
I think you are right in the sense that conflation is the root of misunderstanding here. There is a conflation and misunderstanding of the words good and right. Where good in the context of death and stoicism simply means that things are, as they must be, and can be no other way - therefore they are right so the only thing that can be done, is to accept them. As regards good, nothing is materially necessarily good or bad, as everything from wealth to death can have both positive and negative effects, but "good" is found in virtuous actions. As in meeting death, hardships etc with bravery, kindness, virtue.
Yes this is my feeling. The other thing to consider is that living in accordance with natural laws and orders does not mean you are a passive actor in the story. That would contradict humanity.
@@alexanderroche3928 With such a definition though, you reach a level of non specificity that really anyone can call themselves the living the stoic dream, and not be wrong about it. Well, plus, it truly feels intelectually dishonest to make the distintion in the way you point it out between right and good. it just ends up being a sort of "rationalization" of christian values, or else you wouldn't default to bravery, kindness and hardship as virtuous. you already deemed them as much through your own personal bias. i could just aswell say hardship is just a matter of luck. bravery is impulsivity that turns out the result you were seeking (otherwise you would call it something else even if they shared everything else), kindness could just as well be condescendence, a tool to your own emotional selfishness if you are getting any enjoyment out of it, etc. death would be something unavoidable and right, not virtuous. I dont personally believe any of this, or agree with you. It just baffles me how people out there extend stoicism to meet their ethical needs no matter what, you'll say anything and it will extend like putty, and so it's so limp and shapeless, everything and nothing at the same time, but the people lusting in it will come to strongman it like a christian at a gay wedding.
"living isn't special, slaves and animals do it" killed me
This is why I love stoicism. It's not a religion, it promotes wisdom. And there's a verse in the bible that talks about being wise, can't quote it right off hand, but the stoics believe to "live in agreement with nature" what is it to be wise? In my opinion it's what the stoics teach but also to be a critical thinker, and to question everything. We don't have to agree with everything stoicism teaches because it's a lot like science where it's a learning journey. And I believe we can fortify it by putting our own interpretations on it in a good way, whereas with religion that almost always spools trouble. You shouldn't necessarily love the bad things that happen to you, but to put it the way Robert Greene (author of the 48 laws of power) spoke about his stroke, he said he doesn't love it, that he could never do that. But that he's accepted it, and it's shown him so many ways and taught him strength to a different degree. I do not subscribe to devaluing life, but to accept that here in this moment is worth being present for, but accepting that it will end, the world will not stop turning, so basically just be present. And value life, we're only here for a blink then we're gone. To be here is a privilege, but we will leave. And that's okay, we don't gotta like it, but we sure as hell ain't gotta hate it. It's just something we do. I think the devalue on life was popular back then because death was around every corner so there was this centralized desensitized sensation towards death. We can be better, because we're not living 2,000 years ago, the world is a lot different. We live longer, life is full of more opportunities. We arguably have more of a reason to live than ever before. But we must be ready to leave. Because tomorrow is not promised to anybody. Just simply accepting that, can help you honestly appreciate the moment you're in good or bad. This is a philosophy, right? Love of wisdom? Let's take Jesus' teachings of being wise and to realize we are more than just "eat sleep die" and pair it with the resilience and fortitude that stoicism offers.
This seems like a strange take on stoicism; painting it as passive and accepting. That is true only of that which you cannot change and cannot influence... and there is a LOT we can change. and influence. I think a lot of the acceptance you talk about here is actually retrospective acceptance, rather than accepting evils to come.
I also thought a main pillar to stoicism was courage, nothing courageous about killing yourself to me, living, and dealing with the harsh realities of life is far more courageous than ending it all prematurely.
The BS about stoicism is as a Man you’re already determining things you can change or cannot change , but everything can be changed
ever noticed the line of what you can control and what you cant has been left intentionally vauge? no shades of grey too it? in modern psychology that would be a mental error to make such absolutes yet he had no knowledge of such. so why we take the word at face value of a 3000 year old aristocrat is beyond me.
is that a fact?@@tristan583
@@tristan583not everything can be changed. You can lose people, you cant change death. Your partner could miss your birthday, cant change that.
Thank you for the nuance. Recommendations engines are doing a terrible job at adding nuance in someone's feed.
You’re welcome! Nuance isn’t popular, but much needed!
Hugely underrated comment.
Taking good values from different schools of philosophy and building our own mental machine from it is how we evolve.
I am glad you pointed these things out, usually people who talk about stoicism don’t give much criticism about it.
There is practical wisdom in Stocism, but I also agree that "man does not live by bread alone."
Judging the ancients according to your personal ethos is always a huge mistake... and is leaning *hard* into active stupid territory.
You are naive & arrogant
People seek too much instant gratification today. A society must have a disciplined people to function properly otherwise we’ll find ourselves seeing the fate of the Weimar Republic or Rome.
But we shouldn’t devalue the moral meanings of life that do bring true happiness in humanity like family, community, and social concern.
Well said.
Some people are raised that way and try to get out it and have a hard time doing so, but yes they do.
I'm sorry but I don't like stoicism at all, it seems to me a very bad philosophy
I am a Christian I've just started studying stoicism I like it. Before I looked into it just recently I would over hear people saying he is quite and reserved and stoic. I see so many not quite people trying to control themselves and others, and also so many complaint door mat type people, so it is appealing to me the balance presented in the philosophy and the use observation and self improvement and self reliance, but no matter how good you become at being you there will always be others and a more inclusive philosophy would be better for understanding others... Some will journey with yoummost will not because thinking is hard, so most don't do it or even want to do it... Everything is a balance. Your argument doesn't hold up because not enough balance, not that is bad argument, or even a bad argument is better than no argument at all...people tend to take things too personal stoicism is just saying strip that away. Budism does it by calling desire bad. Desire is not bad too much desire and desire placed on the wrong things as humans tend to do leads to pain but pain is not completely bad although not preferable. I think he took the stoic's advice cause he was the only to give him real advice the others just tried to apease him and being a rich person that is all the guy hand in his life a bunch of servant's trying to appease him... Anyway without balance you could pick apart any philosophy or religion.... Many do this with Christianity and Judiasm by saying how conflicting the teaching and stories are and they are very much so, but instead of looking at the beauty in the inconsistency, and the need for that message for that culture at that point in historical human developmentthey they throw baby out with bath water, what meaning do you from a closed mind??? . I see this all the time like people love to throw the baby out with the bath water in modern thought, stoicism I think tries to say stop doing that. I am like that i am very idealistic and i over attach to my ideal and cannot see around it. Like as if i am to perfect thought or i must perfect everything, stocism is a bit of relief from that urge to perfect everything for the semi autistic people like myself.
I would say your analysis of this is far more akin to Nihilism than Stoicism. The real difference between the two is while a nihilist frets and fears what he cannot control, a Stoic accepts these things and continues his life nonetheless.
Thank you for the thoughtful videos. I found you not to long ago and started watching through your videos. Really helps solidify my perspective on the universe and clarify ideologies such as stoicism.
Memento mori, acknowledging that death is inevitable and that every moment is valuable. This actually makes me appreciate life more and love my family and friends and be a righteous man who searches for peace and balance through the four stoic virtues. I love that stoicism is a philosophy and not a religion.
Which makes John Kramer the ultimate stoic.
Buddha says life is suffering
Tremendous video. With any philosophy, we must ask ourselves to what degree it ought to be taken. Keep making videos, I would love to see this channel go to the moon.
Thank you! I very much appreciate the encouragement.
I was hesitant to watch this, but I'm glad I did. I think at the end of the day you have to form your ideas about any teaching in life, be it philosophy, fitness, etc. I appreciate that you challenge these ideas and don't necessarily force that on others! This video allowed me to really think about what I read from this and other philosophies, while still balancing how they interact with our own values!
Good points..but that whole era was a dark age and life was cheap....and short. Stoicism was simply a reaction to living in a brutal, socially constrained era. I'd also add that Stoics were puzzled how Christians willingly died in the maws of lions as gleeful martyrs...so instead of castigating followers of Christ or Stoics....I'd look through the lens of how human beings coped in a very different and brutal world from our own.
Good points.
That works well for Marcus Aurelius, as he was in a military position where he had to make decisions that had consequences but was not always free to make the choice that left him with a clean conscious.
Stoicism can be a tool to cope with moral wounds and preparation for immediate but costly action, but it has it's drawbacks when applied as a way of valuing life. It is a means of managing grief in order to operate efficiently, but but can be a bit empty on the side of healing. A bit like some forms of Buddhism that seek primarily to end suffering through emptiness.
@@forthehonorforge4840 it also worked well for a former slave named Epictetus. Stoicism was a coping mechanism and philosophy in an earlier time, that wasn't concerned with modern comforts...plain and simple. We live in a time of luxury, compared to the ancients and stoicism definitely has its limitations.....but I still value it as a tool. I can't stress enough that you must put yourself in an earlier mindset to fully understand it's practicality in that time. It's not that the Stoics or others didn't care, many set up relief for orphans etc, but the state of medicine, culture and just how totalitarian and brutal Rome and other ancient states were and how they ruled over their populations.
I found th
I found the lead video fascinating but really appreciated all the thoughtful commentary even more.
Good video. Can’t say I wholly agree that this refutes stoicism but thank you for providing context to one of the lesser known stories.
Great video. I think often with stoicism, people adopt it when they are already in a difficult situation they can't control and where their greatest chance of mental health lies in accepting that situation. That's certainly what happened with Marcus Aurelius. He didn't want to take on the problems of empire, but saw it as his duty to do so, and Meditations is how he reconciled himself to it. Valuing life is a luxury you have if you have access to the luxuries of life. If you don't, it doesn't do you any good to dwell on or value them.
This is what the early church and apologetics argued with. Taking the best and pushing away the immoral.
In a different letter Seneca said stoics were to preserve their bodies until honor, loyalty, or dignity demanded otherwise. He contradicts himself but I wouldn’t say he devalues life
Exactly, the stoics were humans just like us, contradicting themselves, growing, learning just as we do, picking verses to fit narratives of some is common. Not once in my 2 years of reading on stoicism did i pick up that it promoted suicide
It promotes apathy @@ospremier8581
Great video as always. I have often thought these same thoughts when I encounter Stoicism in popular culture.
What were the paintings that you showed in this video?
You really deserve more subs. Your videos are fantastic
While a fresh take is always needed and appreciated.... I don't think the stoic devalues life, as much as they try to make mankind understand their lot in life is not unique to only the person or their kind. The hubris of humankind is not always a helpful trait when one is searching for their place and meaning in life.
Exactly “Under no circumstances ever say ‘I have lost something,’ only ‘I returned it.’ Did a child of yours die? No, it was returned. Your wife died? No, she was returned. ‘My land was confiscated.’ No, it too was returned.
‘But the person who took it was a thief.’
Why concern yourself with the means by which the original giver effects its return? As long as he entrusts it to you, look after it as something yours to enjoy only for a time - the way a traveller regards a hotel.”
Among the many quotes by Marcus Aurelius like “Dwell on the beauty of life. Watch the stars, and see yourself running with them”
To me those quotes don’t sound like the talk of people whom devalue everything in life it sounds like they just know that getting too attached to said value can cause issues. Not that we should not value but rather value while we have it like a hotel as Epictetus says.
I am a little torn in two directions about this one. But I love that you provoke us in a way that leaves me searching myself for some kind of resolution. Great stuff
Just found your channel by a YT-Recommendation, and after watching a couple your videos it is incomprehensible - or worrying - to me, that your Audience so far has been quite limited. There is so much “uneducated, Education”-Videos of people, praising e.g. Stoicisim as a “human operating system” without caring to do even the basics of research.
In that sense I’m convinced that you will eventually get your numbers up - because you’re offering a new perspective, and creative videos instead of simply swimming with the flow.
That’s kind of you to say, my friend! I try to do my best. I’m no expert, but I can read, think, challenge people, and give people the original sources to make their own judgments. There’s a lot of good in Stoicism, but people deserve to see the full picture, whether they accept it or reject it. Hopefully the channel grows. But if not, I’m glad fine people like yourself have been able to find it, at least.
Their algorithms are getting very refined and impressive. I have to watch clicking on to dumb fake science's though. Otherwise it starts adding silly beliefs.
I believe it’s important to remember that stoicism was a very open ended philosophy that encouraged debate the core tenants remained true but multiple aspects were critiqued or looked at from a different lens. Off the top of my head Seneca criticizes Zeno about his view on Drunkenness
I’d also like to point out that I get a different impression from the devaluing of things. They still value them they just know they can’t last and or they can be gone very quickly
“Under no circumstances ever say ‘I have lost something,’ only ‘I returned it.’ Did a child of yours die? No, it was returned. Your wife died? No, she was returned. ‘My land was confiscated.’ No, it too was returned.
‘But the person who took it was a thief.’
Why concern yourself with the means by which the original giver effects its return? As long as he entrusts it to you, look after it as something yours to enjoy only for a time - the way a traveller regards a hotel.”
I don’t believe he’s saying don’t value your family or anything like the sorts I believe he’s saying to be happy with what you have and cherish it but don’t expect it to last forever and if it doesn’t last forever don’t become distraught
I'm sorry but I don't like stoicism at all, it seems to me a very bad philosophy
@@ElUltimoLeviathan7901 how so what about it don’t you like?
Great channel.
How do you feel the similarities or seperations between the stoic ideas of accepting torment and the Buddhist ideas of acceptance merge or diverge? both seem to have roots in understanding that life is chaotic but happiness finds its roots not in creating happiness but in accepting ones fate and not fighting against it?!
would love to see a video essay on this topic
I have this saved to watch later, but in reading your description, I agree that the devaluation of life once it faces hardship or suffering is to be rejected, but it's not just stoicism which promotes suicide. I think it was part and parcel of all pagan societies and philosophies. I will watch this when I have the time. I really enjoy your content.
No, not "value". Attachment. Tao of Steve: "Be desireless. Be excellent. Be gone."
The fact that you are bringing the nuances makes you a true Stoic. Epictetus said is not things that upsets us, but our judgement about things. As long as you continue to mull over the nuances you are little by little becoming a stronger stoic. The impediment to action advances action , you know the rest of the quote.
Nicely put. Completely agree with you, this has always been my issue within this philosophy. But I sure do admire it at the same time.
They were saying love it because you can’t change it, and beachside of that you are forced to adapt, and that only makes YOU grow as an individual… I don’t see where there is any other meaning behind it.
There is absolutely some truth to this. I am not entirely sure the video is right that finding acceptance in those things that are beyond our control when it comes to life entail 'thinking less of' life. Thinking less of death doesn't necessarily entail thinking less of life. If anything we might find the opposite. I believe a terminally ill person can find much contentment in stoicism that teaches them how to face the inevitable with minimal distress, especially if the person who is terminally ill does not believe in God.
Now Stoicism, or Platonism for that matter doesn't offer us redemption or any other such path that would take us back into heaven from our fallen state of being, so that is a major shortcoming for sure. I believe with Origen that our souls are eternal, and perfect, and that the earth was created for those souls who, through an act of their will, fell down from heavenly perfection, and are now confined to material existence: "A soul in so far as it is good knows not of a union with a body." (Origen says this somewhere in the First Principles).
I believe when the Stoic's teach us to accept nature, and the way of the life's frequently "chaotic state", it is not meant to necessarily de-value such things, but to accept and embrace these things, as to contribute positive and even negative indifference to your life. From that, one can begin to view the world in a very different way, and recognize the beauty of virtue, as well as the complexity of things which we cannot control. To embrace truth, and uphold it, and live in the present.
This video did really enhance the idea that over attachment to anything can be negative to your well being, as with over indulgence in any matters can deprive balance, which brings great emphasis on the importance of self-awareness and the idea to never be so stuck to one particular things. In indifference with others beliefs, there are so many things we can be taught to confide in for our own life philosophies likewise. Thought this was a very insightful video, and it definitely challenged my personal philosophies, bringing me to learn more than I that I would have.
I have a friend who identifies as a stoic. He's suicidal, and there's nothing I can do to stop him. He's made it clear that one day he'll do it, and that he'd tell me when he is about to do it. Last night was almost that night, but he changed his mind. I'm so nervous because i have no idea when this will happen. Ive been doing research on this aspect of stoicism that i was unfamiliar with. That's why I found this video. Thank you, I understand a little better now.
Why did he tell you that he plans to kill himself? Do you think he's reaching out to find a reason to live or for help?
If you ask me you should cut all ties to him. Think of yourself, that friend is no true friend but is very selfish, and to tell you that he wants to do it is even worse.
Does he think the brain creates consciousness and he won't exist after death?
It sounds like he’s trying to emotionally control you or project his mess onto you. Either way, this type of behavior is being aimed at you and clearly keeping you off balance. I’d say it may be worth your salt to set boundaries with them and if the can’t respect that then cut them off. Up to you though. Just a suggestion as you know the situation better than I do.
if he’s suicidal then he’s not stoic
Now I'm confused. The Buddhists and some other Eastern philosophers teach us about the stripping away of beliefs and or attachments. How different is this from the Stoic devaluation of these same beliefs or attachments? Pardon my clumsy question.
Great video. You did a great job in describing stoicism but I wouldn't say that all the things are "right" per se, it more like they just "are". It's true that life and death are meaningless, they just are. In the great scope of thing (aka in the resolution of galaxies and universe) one's life in nothing more than just whim of reality. In simpler terms everything happens as a resultant of the flux of reality - chaos if you will. Having that in mind, conclusion is as follows: your thought, your consciousness, emotions are effects of your biological preprograming of the evolution just as a tool of your survival, there is no place for good or evil, you are because you happened to live just because.
I really enjoyed the topic well done. However I found your choice of paintings captive. I don’t know all them but if you have a list handy that would be great.
Thank you for this video, as someone struggling with suicide myself and who has been indirectly and sometimes quite directly given approval by friends to do it.
Don't go
@@brucesekliar5824 Thank you man, I'm still here. Hope you're ok as well.
@@DGordillo123I'm looking to go. How did you come out?
Thank you for sharing.
The Marcellinus story is one that I come back to often. I found it inspiring.
Where has this channel been?? Thanks for the essays. I just found this and I love it.
Fascinating video. I do believe perhaps that these "problems" of stoicism that you point out may only be problems if you assume that any one philosophy is to be followed in a dogmatic all-or-nothing way. There may be good and bad aspects to all philosophical ideas but it is important to latch onto what is good even if you don't accept it in it's entirety. I think devaluation of human life is more of an interpretation of one particular story from one stoic rather than something that all stoics believe. Stoicism, in my interpretation, is about being unshakable and weathering your circumstance by putting less focus on things that are outside of your control. It is about coming to terms with struggles that may be encountered in life by accepting these trials as opportunity to overcome and live meaningfully. I think any stoic individual worth his or her salt would very much be anti-suicide and understand that human life is valuable. Facing death honorably is about being unshaken by impending fate and being at peace when something may inevitably cause death. It is not bringing about your own death even when it may not be inevitable. It is possible I have misunderstood Stoicism, but having read the work of Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus, I would personally not believe this take on stoicism to be accurate.
When I was on social media I noticed, much like ridiculous new age quotes, quotes from a number of stoics began to appear on my feeds. Of course, most of those posting these quotes barely understood what I felt to be the surface of this school of philosophy. I appreciate your bringing attention to the dark side of stoicism.
I consider myself a stoic-at least a person who tries every day to model his life after stoic philosophical thought. I have always felt however that the stoic view on life, and suicide are very deep and complicated, and one size in my estimation does not fit all in this respect. I personally feel that suffering does not remove value from life. I also believe however that in the matter of suicide, it is a decision that must rest with the individual, though overall I am opposed to it and I would never encourage a person to do it.
I also reject the idea that we are mere animals. I believe that Jesus was correct when he rhetorically asked if we are not more than the birds of the air. We as a species can and in many cases do act like animals in regards to sex, eating, cruelty, violence and fulfilling our appetites. However, we are more than this, and every day is truly a struggle to maintain our humanity.
This brings me to my next point. I feel that when it comes to philosophy, we as individuals should be fully aware of the philosophical positions we hold, and know them very well from all possible aspects. We however do not need to adopt all things a certain philosopher says or writes as though it is holy writ. It is at this point that we as philosophers or thinkers formulate arguments against aspects or points made by various philosophers. To completely adopt an entire philosophical system without any opposition is to be narrow minded, and immature.
We should know what we think and believe, why we believe it, and to know the faults or weaknesses of each our beliefs. In a manner of speaking, we must not only check out intellectual blinds spots, but the intellectual blind spots of those philosophical systems that we hold dear.
I could go on ad nauseum about this, but for the sake of brevity, and the fact that this is a CZcams comment section, I must brief.
Thank you for this. These long, thoughtful comments are some of my favorites, and I think you are spot on. I wish more people approached the life of the mind in this way.
"I think" this and "i believe" that... what do you "know" exactly? should have saved this meandering pretentious rant for substack TBH.
It had been a while since Ive heard someone talk about a topic with such amplitude.
Practicing Stoic here, and I endorse that stoic friends message.
Living another day changes nothing. All you can lose is the present moment, it matters not if you live for one day or a thousand years. Both the newborn and the old lose only the present moment. The future and the past does not exist other than in your mind.
The future that you feel entitled too does not exist. Nothing changes after you die. This constellation which you perceive as yourself has been temporary from the start of your current existence - how much more life do you need before you feel you had enough?
One present moment is the same as an entire life. Soon you will be dead, and not even your name will be left. Another day makes no difference.
Live this present moment as if it is your last and ask yourself what you have lacking. If you feel you lack anything then is because you are a slave to passion. If you feel contentment, as if you just had a great dinner, then you know you are ready to die. And if you are ready to die, it is because you made the most of each moment. You are content with one single moment. You lack nothing.
I like Stoicism and even consider myself to be somewhat Stoic, and I like reading Aurelius and Seneca. Seneca being a little more. Though I don’t agree with everything they say. A lot I do, but some I don’t. I also consider myself to be an existentialist, and if I’m right, part of that is finding your own way of life
Seneca had a fortune of wealth and was council for emporers who murdered many people.
I read stuff too, its not bad but he didnt really follow his own advice.
Ofcourse a rich man can say "well i could live perfectly without this money" but somehow wont give it away
@@splishsplash3492 That’s true. I feel like my opinions have shifted slightly since my original comment haha
Interesting. Finally some people are seeing that stoicism has its failures.
What's the painting in the thumbnail?
Found this video just as I was in the process of reading Meditations. Truly, the stuff of Stoicism is much different than what you are sold by it's modern sponsors. Many of the concepts are good and truthful, but many others are grim and unhelpful.
I think his criticism of stoicism is also unhelpful because it applies to cognitive behavioural therapy and dialectical behavioural therapy. Love what you cannot change is called radical acceptance in psychology and it’s the basis of mental health. Stoicism isn’t cruel, life is, nature is. It’s true that pre Islamic and pre Christian stoic philosophers didn’t value life as much. Al Kindi, the Muslim stoic philosopher did place a value on life. I don’t think a person who hasn’t gone through dialectical and cognitive behavioural therapy is in a position to criticize stoic philosophy and call it cruel. His ideas are cute but have no basis in the scientific literature or anyone’s experience
All things work out for your good; so long as you keep the faith!!
I’m truly learning this difficult lesson for the 2nd time in my life!!
I’m just glad I’m getting my 3rd chance at making it correct! Before I get to old to make a difference for myself!
Thank you for attempting to explain this concept... however be not afraid of accepting the necessity of suffering, cruelty and the like. This doesn't paint things over flowery so to say...it shrinks their power over us, and thus helps to empower and shape our self perception.
I'm not very sure if that's the point of stoicism "to escape or to not feel pain" but to accept it. I don't know if I'm explaining my self well, but anyways I want to be able to feel pain and suffering, because that allows me to also feel happy and grateful. If you lose the ability of feeling, then you become Mike from breaking bad that didn't want to suffer any longer so he shutted off his feelings, that, for me doesn't sound like a good way to live
In my experience, no philosophy is meant to be exclusively followed. Philosophy should be the means to serve mankind not the goal we strive for. Otherwise, we become self-indulgent slaves of ideas, as you presented in this video. I respect stoicism for presenting a sense of dignity which is sorely lacking in our world, but we should always keep in mind that the practicality, the way in which we apply these thoughts in our life is even more important than the thought itself.
By the way good choice on the background music with Kai Engel.
I have discovered your Chanel a few days ago an have been binging it since. I have to say while I really like your Videos as food for thought and often challenging my own preconceptions, what detracts from your content I feel are the broad generalisations about todays world. My Opinion is that todays world has reached a stage of near infinite, fractal complexity (for one example just look at the enourmous body of Research available today) that would invalidate almost every generalisation without propper caveats. I belive you should soften some of your stances on the problems of the modern world.
Devaluing things is different from detaching ourselves from things. Stoicism contents that I have consumed so far teach looking at things rationally. For example, understanding and accepting that people are mortal should give us the courage to deal with our love ones dying. It does not mean that we do not care if they live or die because they are worthless.
Also, I dont think Stoicism is about believing that everything that happens even disasters and the most horrific events are GOOD. It is about realizing that most of these things have happened before and that we can take these bad things as opportunities to practice virtues. "Everything which happens is as familiar and well known as the rose in spring and the fruit in summer, for such is disease, and death and calumny... "Not that this is a misfortune, but to bear it nobly is good fortune" - Mediations, Marcus Aurelius
Glad to see this.
thank you for this video.
Great video.
Very good critique on the stoicism. I’ve embraced and have been practicing this philosophy for the past 5 years or so and, while it is powerful in setting you free from several mundane worries, I always thought it also had a deeper, darker meaning that conflicts with our very human nature. You really nailed it. The answer is in the nuances
really? sounds counterintuitive and hypocritical to follow any "ism" despite calling for an ideal nuanced holistic eclectic wisdom. you want to have your cake and eat it too. just because you see benefit in something, doesn't mean you should abandon the broader historical context those beliefs were formulated and that he didint have access to the same modern scientific method we do today and thus its laughable you basically fell into a religious mindset without knowing it. pure conjecture based on unfalsifiable claims that you can always find "proof" for because of general nature of those claims. its silly to follow any authority for this reason to be honest.
I would argue that it is actually a very obtuse and ignorant application of typical face value understanding. At least up until the point I decided to stop watching the video, he clearly miscontrues what Seneca's message really meant.
What Seneca meant is that it is not worth living for the aforementioned vices and pleasures of man, but rather than to die for what you believe is appropriately vituous enough... thereby paradoxically giving credence to the value of life.
The value of a man's life is dependent on how he decided to live it until the point of death... not when he is born.
In my limited study of stoicism the idea that you must not see the value in any externals has not been my interpretation. Relationships and pleasure are basal desires and should not be entirely removed from ones life but simply controlled in such a way that we are not dependent upon them for our own contentment. I see it more as a degree of control over these desires rather than not having them at all or acknowledging their importance.
I think this is a faulty reading of Stoicism. Marcus Aurelius fought wars- he didn’t sit idly by and just “let things be.” Even if something that is happening is pure evil, you first have to accept it before you act or not act. I was held up last year and the guy was threatening to shoot me. I was scared shitless and all of a sudden thought about my family, all the things I haven’t accomplished, who was gonna feed my cats, etc. until I realized that my life, my precious life was going to end one day anyway. If I’m going to die now am I gonna die as cravenly as this? I accepted that I was going to die right now- and I sense of calm overcame me. I ended up rushing the guy -who did have a gun, loaded or not, whether he was gonna use it, I’ll never know- and took my life into my own hands. I was lucky. But I think I finally understood Stoic philosophy. Life is sweet and it can end any moment. But it is just life AND IT WILL END. What makes me so special? If you believe something is evil, MA says it’s a sin not to point it out and fight - that is in your power- but first accept that it is happening. That’s it’s happening is not in your control. Good video. I just kinda, disagree
Man I really wanted to hear or discuss something like this. I've been reading Aurelius, Seneca and a good part of Epictetus. Theirs are terrific works of thought and have helped in my view of life, and occasionally I even have the mental presence to apply some of their teachings into practice. However, I've always been bothered by certain aspects, and it just feels good hearing someone else hone in on them more eloquently than I could.
A different contention I have with stoic thinkers is that they seem to devalue emotion as inherently immoral and always disadvantageous, which I strongly disagree with. It's fairly self-evident that without emotion life becomes vapid and meaningless, even suffering and grief I would argue is to some degree required for a full life, if only to create a contrast on which to build happiness (but it has other uses as well, building courage and strength for example). An emotionless life is as much a meaningless fantasy as a paradise of eternal happiness or hell of eternal torment.
Also there's a kind of "un-manly" resignation to mortal (human) authority, which seems to contradict some ideals of the Stoic. I can't remember who but it might've been Seneca who argued that if someone above you condemned you to death or banishment you should simply accept it without a fight, or something of the kind. I recall reading many other similar examples, probably not just Seneca. Though the Stoic foundation of accepting the things you cannot fight is wise, I think it very unwise (even un-stoic) to abandon fighting for justice, a core virtue, even when it is futile.
Good stuff, thank you for this insightful and much needed perspective on stoicism!
Stoicism doesn’t devalue emotions it just frames things in a way where you are not controlled by them. It’s just about controlling what you can and accepting what you can’t. It’s not cold or anti emotion or oppressive, it’s a useful tool.
After therapy I too devalue emotions because it reduces your IQ to that of a lizard and sabotages your life goals. Emotions are evil to women. I teach women how to not ruin their lives by learning to control their emotions via cognitive and dialectical behavioural therapy tactics. Their lives improve significantly in every single way. The author of the video lacks understanding of women and psychology. I tell women to focus on what is in their control as Epictetus said and accept this problematic world as it is and not as we would have it. In Islam we say everything in this world is a test and therefore good. Also Allah never gave humans a burden humans could not think their way out of. Stoicism isn’t cruel, life is.
A great example of stoic femininity was Hurrem sultan, Roxalana, a Ukrainian girl enslaved and her family was murdered. She was thrown into the sultan’s palace and told if you make him happy you can make your life heaven but if you don’t accept your fate your life will be hell. At first she fought and only got herself into trouble and then she sang and got the attention of the sultan and decided to win his heart. She got him to dump the entire harem, marry her, murder her rivals and ruled the Ottoman Empire in its glory and started the golden century of the Sultanate of the Women.
By accepting his Slavery, Epictetus found a way out of it.
Stoicism is only cruel to people who have not been through serious hardship and gone to therapy. Hundreds of women I helped and introduced even to Ryan Holiday and also ones I introduced to more serious scholarship said their lives changed tremendously. So had great careers after but many went to marry millionaires.
In the world of stoicism there are niche beliefs I consider this outlook very niche, I've been practicing stoicism for roughly 3 years and I see it more as a grounding philosophy for your emotions, acknowledging what you can control so you can better act on what you can control,in fact I believe by doing this you can by proxy "INFLUENCE" things outside of your control ie your environment,people around you etc. If you're in a relationship or better said friends these principles can help u better navigate that relationship
Life is a scrimmage with everything that has, can, and will exist. A scrimmage against feelings not wanted, thoughts not wanted, people not wanted,… etc. everything in life can be attributed to a scrimmage taking place in order to achieve a subjective goal.
God has blessed your words with brilliance. Keep talking - we’re listening.
Interesting, I've always appreciated the Nietzchean aversion to nihilism and the stoics seemed rife with it. Like our modern materialist/positivist outlook - nihilistic to the gunwales. Not surprising that in our case and in theirs, hedonism goes rampant. Then again, maybe I'm wrong! Thanks for the thought provoking work!!😎👍👍🙏🙏
I was forty years old in 2010 when I realized that my mother, an Al-Anon since 1973, had been teaching me stoicism since I was a pup. The coping mechanisms that are inherent in Aurelius, in Epictetus are completely legitimate, and I've taught them to my own children. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is unwise, since any philosophy can be derailed by any anecdotal misapplication. There is an aesthetic side to stoicism that must be applied for the rest of the standard to be satisfying or sustainable. That side is what makes our hearts leap and fulfills us. It is the payment for our acceptance of fate.
It is an interesting point, though stoics would prefer death or suicide not because they equate us to animals or inanimate beings, but because we are not capable to live a good (GOOD) life anymore. Human life is valuable as it is capable to accomplish good virtuous actions. The stoics did not want to devalue all just to avoid pain from valying things, but because they thought that what could not yield virtuous action, had no value. I would argue in modern societies a similar principle is applied as what to value or what not to value.. only substituying virtue with pleassure.
So we have the choice of loving our fate or hating it. I thought love was better than hate now? My take and practice of Amor Fati is all about accepting the world exactly as it is, not sure what it means to the narrator here. And going by the results of many years of practice I can report some pretty good ones, really good living inside of my skin these days, thank you very much.
Thank you, sir.
Thanks for the video. every philosophy has limits.
I don't think that was a stoic friend. A stoic friend would say:"Don't let anyone tell you what to do, only you can decide your fate, if you decided to commit suicide, then do it." And stoicism told you to deviate from pain and emotions, not to devaluate things, sure your parents death is a big blow to you, but that's out of your control, only thing you can control is your perspective, there is no use to mourn, instead just do something productive. But I like your saying that stoicism is cruel, because I tend to look life that way. Human's biggest advantage is rational thinking, while human's biggest con is we don't do rational thingking all the time, we tend to be effected by our emotions too often.
Thank you for making this video. Surprising subtle point about rather have an evil world where good can sometimes surface than a world where nothing is evil (to invert your phrasing).
In some ways it reminds me of Zižek’s critique of Zen (as in “zen at war”) where the kamikazes were taught - you don’t kill.. you simply move you hand and the sword enters.
Let’s not detach ourselves from what makes us alive.
Great video..you should similar analysis on upanishad also
Thanks! I may do that. I pick up the Upanishads every now and then: beautiful works.
When I watched some videos about stoicism I got a bit of a feeling that some of these people seem to have depressed thoughts, and this video fits perfectly. Not that they actually are depressed, but it gave me the vibe they devalue everything and nothing is important in life, theres nothing to live for. I dont think thats the intention about the philosophy at all and I will get into some books about stoicism, but I also want to read the bible.
6:52 "Shouldn't we hold off on degrading the value of human beings?"
Rather, on the contrary, I think that killing yourself does not degrade the value of human beings. I think having a terminal illness degrades the value of human beings. It's a mockery of the perfect form of a human - to be correct enough in your proportions, but suffer just enough in living to be wrong - a freak of nature.
I think not going out on your own terms degrades the value of human beings. I think a death that's not "honourable, enlightened, and courageous" degrades the value of human beings.
Great, thanks!
"all that happens is in and of itself good , love that which abuses us, deem that abuser good and declare that we ourselves are not so valuable thing after all". I don't think any reasonable stoic would accept this as truth. The stoic perspective is not that all events or actions are inherently good in themselves, but rather that our judgments and responses to them can determine their moral value. Stoics advocate for accepting the events that happen to us, recognizing that there are aspects of life that are beyond our control. However, acceptance does not imply approval or endorsement of everything that occurs. It means acknowledging the reality of the situation and directing our energy towards responding virtuously. While Seneca acknowledges that life can be filled with hardships, he advises against giving in to despair or seeking an escape through suicide. Instead, he encourages Lucilius to confront difficulties with courage and to find solace in philosophical wisdom.
Seneca himself had expressed disapproval of suicide in his other writings. He believed that individuals should endure suffering and confront life's challenges rather than resorting to suicide, which he considered an act of cowardice.
It's important to consider Seneca's writings as a whole and not interpret a single letter out of context. In the broader context of Stoic philosophy, the emphasis is on living a virtuous life, finding meaning in adversity, and developing resilience to face life's challenges.
Excellent. You maintained your integrity while increasing your knowledge
I appreciate your exploration of this subject. As I understand it, Seneca Was drawing And analogy In a similar situation To my father's own passing. . He Had been diagnosed With a terminal case of mesothilioma, So severe that wind discovered it was the size of a small grapefruit period. Wihin a year and a half It took a perfectly fit man And made him appear Something from a Nazi death camp period He was writhng in agony And Wished To hasten its end. Unfortunately, In in the state in which he lived The religious folk had instituted a policy In which No person was allowed To Seek From that pain Medically. . This forced To endure his Agony For no other purpose than fulfilling the Pleasure The individuals within that state, A faith to which he personally had no affinity . Far wiser policy, and one Would allow an individual Make The decision To take one's own life Under such circumstances Based on their own personal belief .
I did want to bring up a different subject That Surprises me. Based on The welcome Insightfulness of the rest of your opinions, You make Numerous references Other CZcams creators And even yourself in a, You know, in a snarky and Emotional way. Really diminishes the objective value of what you have to share. It replaces the In the intelligence of what you have to share With a Certain amount of bomb throwing. Emotionality Which just Doesn't Do the best In carrying forward What you have to say Which is so very valuable That's just a thought . It's worth everything you paid for it. .
Philosophy is one of those areas of study that can be interpreted in some many ways by different people because of their life experiences, personality, mood, etc... i agree that stoicism is not a one fits all approch, that's why it's important to gather knowledge and perspectives from many different places( in this case like Buddhism, Christianity, etc..) that way we can take what is useful and what is not. what is useful would be determined by you, so be sure to ask for the perspective of other people, this way we become whole.
I think it’s not complete illustration about the dark side of stoicism as mentioned by your video about stoicism! However, it’s important to note your view about these points mentioned in this video about the dark side of stoicism!! Stoicism changed my way to view life in general and specifically about how we deal with ourselves and the world from a different point of view! However, what’s available nowadays about stoicism is incomplete, it’s a small fraction of information available today about stoicism because most of it has been lost in course of history!!!
I see no cruelty, no good, no bad, only nature, and change is nature's delight. Amor fati. Memento mori.
Stoic writers certainly had some great ideas, but in their negative capacity I always think of Job as the anti-Stoic par excellence. In the face of suffering he shouts "why God why?" and God answers: there isn't a why. One of the many lessons of the Book of Job is not to accept suffering. God wants us to desire something better (Himself).
You should live life like playing a board game.
Whilst the game is on, you give your best. You want to win. You want to live the game.
But whatever the result, it should determine your state of mind. If you win, enjoy it but don't over value it. It's just a game. If you lose, feel unpleasant but don't over value it. It's just a game.
At the end of the day, experience the game. Whatever happens. Make the best out of it. Remember is just a game.
I don't think any stoic philosopher is indifferent to life and suffering. But they know, that at the end, it's just a game.
Dig deeper. To find meaning is not the same as having meaning.
That Cogniet is one haunting painting....Good choice for this video.
Yes!
Well said.
Good video!
We can be Stoic like, without being stupid.
Stoicism is great but not perfect
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”
Nor is Buddhism, actually, neither is this quote a true translation, but it's damn good and it makes sense.
This video is extremely well done, and presents excellent arguments. I actually agree with Seneca’s every argument on this count, and seek to prepare for my own death as he did, believing that “a good death is a willing death”. (I have witnessed slow gruesome deaths that should never have gone on for so long…) At the same time, the devaluation of everything except Stoic Virtue really does make me a pretty melancholy person, even if it makes me more resilient in some ways. I believe in Divinity, but I actually do not believe God, Nature or the Logos is benevolent. I can only accept the Stoic understanding of Nature as “good” in the sense of “might is right”. We don’t have any choice but to accept the fate that Nature dictates for us, but we may use our reason to control our suffering as much as possible within the good as defined by the Logos. Good, in this sense is far removed from the Christian understanding. The virtues of justice, courage, generosity, etc. that are valued by Stoics are, to my mind, born more out of an aesthetic attraction than as any kind of imitation of the Divine. It is not exactly a cheerful outlook, is it?! I’m reading a lot of Neoplatonism now, and I’m hoping it might help me out a bit, though I am not sure Plotinus’ God (“the One”) is any more benevolent! Thank you for this excellent video.
who cares?