The beginning of this article is very interesting and has a lot of good information. When it got to the part about analyzing the title and the appeal of stoicism to the rich and powerful, I felt...
The beginning of this article is very interesting and has a lot of good information. When it got to the part about analyzing the title and the appeal of stoicism to the rich and powerful, I felt that the analysis was a bit narrowly focused?
I don't disagree with the general idea. I agree that Mark Zuckerberg was probably never interested in any philosophy that would have him give up all his money and power. It just seems like the piece zeroes in on that specific angle and only considers it in those terms.
But I feel like there are a lot of other ways to think about the reasons this one specific philosophy is appealing to some tech CEO guy. Reasons I would have been interested to hear more about from someone knowledgable in philosophy. I can spitball a few ideas right now.
Marcus Aeruleus is a well known fairly well regarded Roman Emperor, so if you are aspiring to be a great leader and were looking to learn from historical leaders, it would make sense to take his personally endorsed philosophy.
Stoicism in the more colloquial sense describes people who are not easily swayed or impacted emotionally by external events, so if you are a rich guy with people constantly trying to get something from you or influence you, the idea of embodying stoicism sounds like it would be useful.
Stoicism is a fairly concrete philosophy that doesnt requite embracing any mystical or religious elements, which would appeal to the kind of rationalist self image that a silicon valley tech bro might hold of himself.
I think all of those above options are reasonable explanations that are worthy of consideration. They're basically the same reasons that any person might become interested in stoicism, because rich people are at the end of the day just people.
It just feels a little lacking to me, like its sort of glossed over the main reason anyone engages with self improvement.
Great post. I'd add that in the post popular Stoic text, meditations, we see this great man, the Emperor of Rome, struggling with his fear of dying, his fear of loss. ... So to your point one...
Great post. I'd add that in the post popular Stoic text, meditations, we see this great man, the Emperor of Rome, struggling with his fear of dying, his fear of loss.
Do every deed, speak every word, think every thought in the knowledge that you may end your days any moment. To depart from men, if there be really Gods, is nothing terrible. The Gods could bring no evil thing upon you.
...
What then avails to guide us? One thing, and one alone—Philosophy. And this consists in keeping the divinity within inviolate and intact; victorious over pain and pleasure; free from temerity, free from falsehood, free from hypocrisy; independent of what others do or fail to do; submissive to hap and lot, which come from the same source as we; and, above all, with equanimity awaiting death, as nothing else than a resolution of the elements of which every being compounded. [Emphasis added].
So to your point one above, I think there's something to be said for the authenticity displayed in the text. If you are successful and powerful, you can probably relate more to someone who was successful and powerful writing about his fears than you can relate to someone like Diogenes who lived in a barrel.
Perhaps another example is better. Marcus Aurelius writes in his Meditations that he needs to be better about not giving offense, about accepting insult without becoming angry, and so on.
Say this to yourself in the morning: Today I shall have to do with meddlers, with the ungrateful, with the insolent, with the crafty, with the envious and the selfish. All these vices have beset them, because they know not what is good and what is evil. But I have considered the nature of the good, and found it beautiful: I have beheld the nature of the bad, and found it ugly. I also understand the nature of the evil-doer, and know that he is my brother, not because he shares with me the same blood or the same seed, but because he is a partaker of the same mind and of the same portion of immortality. I therefore cannot be hurt by any of these, since none of them can involve me in any baseness. I cannot be angry with my brother, or sever myself from him, for we are made by nature for mutual assistance, like the feet, the hands, the eyelids, the upper and lower rows of teeth.
These lessons are so much more instructive because at that point in time, he was the most powerful man in the world. He could have offended anyone with absolute impunity. When people annoyed him, he could have simply ordered them killed. So when he writes about equanimity and acceptance, we can be certain that it is coming from a purely ethical place. There's no rationalization there. By contrast, if someone who has no power writes about how important it is not to give offense or take offense, we can never really know how much their own weakness is affecting their logic.
This is what I mean about the authenticity in the text. It's natural that those who have power today would look to learn from those who had power before, because those are the lessons they know they can trust.
And many of the stoics are like this. Seneca was an extremely rich man. So when he writes about how important it is not to value money, we know that it is genuine. But how could I, who have never been rich, counsel a rich man that he should scorn his wealth? We can't know how much of what I believe is sour grapes.
Great little essay. Thank you for sharing. I've always had a soft spot for stoicism, but like the author of this piece, am critical of the passivity it can engender. In my personal life I tend to...
Great little essay. Thank you for sharing.
I've always had a soft spot for stoicism, but like the author of this piece, am critical of the passivity it can engender. In my personal life I tend to waffle back and forth between stoicism, cynicism (in the classical sense), and cynicism (in the modern, colloquial sense). Gun to my head and I have to pick an ism, the first two are probably the ones my gray matter would settle on. My lizard and monkey brains would probably go for the last.
The beginning of this article is very interesting and has a lot of good information. When it got to the part about analyzing the title and the appeal of stoicism to the rich and powerful, I felt that the analysis was a bit narrowly focused?
I don't disagree with the general idea. I agree that Mark Zuckerberg was probably never interested in any philosophy that would have him give up all his money and power. It just seems like the piece zeroes in on that specific angle and only considers it in those terms.
But I feel like there are a lot of other ways to think about the reasons this one specific philosophy is appealing to some tech CEO guy. Reasons I would have been interested to hear more about from someone knowledgable in philosophy. I can spitball a few ideas right now.
Marcus Aeruleus is a well known fairly well regarded Roman Emperor, so if you are aspiring to be a great leader and were looking to learn from historical leaders, it would make sense to take his personally endorsed philosophy.
Stoicism in the more colloquial sense describes people who are not easily swayed or impacted emotionally by external events, so if you are a rich guy with people constantly trying to get something from you or influence you, the idea of embodying stoicism sounds like it would be useful.
Stoicism is a fairly concrete philosophy that doesnt requite embracing any mystical or religious elements, which would appeal to the kind of rationalist self image that a silicon valley tech bro might hold of himself.
I think all of those above options are reasonable explanations that are worthy of consideration. They're basically the same reasons that any person might become interested in stoicism, because rich people are at the end of the day just people.
It just feels a little lacking to me, like its sort of glossed over the main reason anyone engages with self improvement.
Great post. I'd add that in the post popular Stoic text, meditations, we see this great man, the Emperor of Rome, struggling with his fear of dying, his fear of loss.
...
So to your point one above, I think there's something to be said for the authenticity displayed in the text. If you are successful and powerful, you can probably relate more to someone who was successful and powerful writing about his fears than you can relate to someone like Diogenes who lived in a barrel.
Perhaps another example is better. Marcus Aurelius writes in his Meditations that he needs to be better about not giving offense, about accepting insult without becoming angry, and so on.
These lessons are so much more instructive because at that point in time, he was the most powerful man in the world. He could have offended anyone with absolute impunity. When people annoyed him, he could have simply ordered them killed. So when he writes about equanimity and acceptance, we can be certain that it is coming from a purely ethical place. There's no rationalization there. By contrast, if someone who has no power writes about how important it is not to give offense or take offense, we can never really know how much their own weakness is affecting their logic.
This is what I mean about the authenticity in the text. It's natural that those who have power today would look to learn from those who had power before, because those are the lessons they know they can trust.
And many of the stoics are like this. Seneca was an extremely rich man. So when he writes about how important it is not to value money, we know that it is genuine. But how could I, who have never been rich, counsel a rich man that he should scorn his wealth? We can't know how much of what I believe is sour grapes.
Great little essay. Thank you for sharing.
I've always had a soft spot for stoicism, but like the author of this piece, am critical of the passivity it can engender. In my personal life I tend to waffle back and forth between stoicism, cynicism (in the classical sense), and cynicism (in the modern, colloquial sense). Gun to my head and I have to pick an ism, the first two are probably the ones my gray matter would settle on. My lizard and monkey brains would probably go for the last.
Is it stoicism if you're an academic and apathy for the general public?