I just started reading Meditations by Marcus Aurelius and it's cool so far! I believe the root of true stoicism lies in cultivating a "this too shall pass" attitude toward mostly everything, and...
I just started reading Meditations by Marcus Aurelius and it's cool so far! I believe the root of true stoicism lies in cultivating a "this too shall pass" attitude toward mostly everything, and although I think passivity in the face of adversity is a commendable virtue, I can't get behind the other side of the coin, passivity in the face of prosperity. I wanna feel things and jump up and down and get excited, and darn it, sometimes I wanna cry too! But that's the cool thing about philosophy, you can apply the positive elements to yourself and your life and if you don't feel like it you don't have to be another Seneca the Younger. It's a valuable philosophy though with a lot to teach you about yourself and your mindset.
Although I haven't read it myself my friend told me that The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck by Mark Manson does a good job of imparting wisdom with stoicism as the underlying foundation, so that might be a good introduction. I'm not big on the whole Fuck, Shit, Fucking self-help literary movement but my friend liked the book and its reputation speaks for itself. Also, you can't go wrong with the classics such as Meditations or the Enchiridion.
Elimination of all feelings is a common misconception about stoicism. The goal is not to become Vulcan. Mainly, I believe, because it's impossible. Humans are feeling animals. Denying that would...
I wanna feel things and jump up and down and get excited, and darn it, sometimes I wanna cry too!
Elimination of all feelings is a common misconception about stoicism. The goal is not to become Vulcan. Mainly, I believe, because it's impossible. Humans are feeling animals. Denying that would be to go against nature, which is very unstoic.
I was just reading something by Seneca on this, this morning:
I do not withdraw the wise man from the category of man, nor do I deny to him the sense of pain as though he were a rock that has no feelings at all. I remember that he is made up of two parts: the one part is irrational -- it is this that may be bittn, burned, or hurt; the other part is rational -- it is this which holds resolutely to opinions, is courageous, and unconquerable. In the latter is situated man's Supreme Good.
Not sure which version of Meditations you got or how far you've read into it. But the one I read included an intro that made sure to explain that stoicism is not about eliminating feelings. You...
I can't get behind the other side of the coin, passivity in the face of prosperity. I wanna feel things and jump up and down and get excited, and darn it, sometimes I wanna cry too!
Not sure which version of Meditations you got or how far you've read into it. But the one I read included an intro that made sure to explain that stoicism is not about eliminating feelings. You can and should feel happy. But just know that it's temporary and whatever is making you happy could and most likely will be taken away / gone. And don't despair when that happens.
I think you might enjoy this talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5897dMWJiSM, if you haven't seen it already. He talks about Marcus and his beliefs in a way that is absolutely captivating and...
I think you might enjoy this talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5897dMWJiSM, if you haven't seen it already. He talks about Marcus and his beliefs in a way that is absolutely captivating and seems to be completely from the top of his head.
I was always kind of put of by stoicism because for some reason, in my head it had the image of just not letting yourself enjoy anything, or caring. Then I stumbled across that video and realised that It's a lot more compassionate than I realised, and that I was quite a bit more stoic than I knew, and it wasn't a bad thing.
How to be a Stoic by Massimo Pigliucci was also my first thorough introduction. I highly recommend it. There are also a number of good talks by Massimo online, e.g. Stoicism 101.
How to be a Stoic by Massimo Pigliucci was also my first thorough introduction. I highly recommend it. There are also a number of good talks by Massimo online, e.g. Stoicism 101.
To what extent? I mean I live in LA where personalities are abound to say the least, and people shy away from me because compared to their exaggerative bullshit I definitely seem like I have 0...
To what extent? I mean I live in LA where personalities are abound to say the least, and people shy away from me because compared to their exaggerative bullshit I definitely seem like I have 0 personality. And you borderline have to warn people that you are quote... "DGAF"... end quote. A horrible acronym if ever there was one.
So, to reiterate, to what extent? Are you trying to reduce/minimize your personality to an almost completely neutral state? Or is it more of a materialism Buddhist thing where you don't want to react and fight what life brings and simply choose to exist in the flow state of nature?
That is not the point of stoicism as I understand it. It is in fact to maximize and cultivate your personality (virtue) based on the realization that that is what matters, and things like your...
trying to reduce/minimize your personality to an almost completely neutral state
That is not the point of stoicism as I understand it. It is in fact to maximize and cultivate your personality (virtue) based on the realization that that is what matters, and things like your reputation, bank account, looks, car, etc. should be indifferent to you. Some may be preferred indifferents, i.e. having them is preferred over not having or loosing them, but only insofar as this does not impact you yourself, that is your virtue, or 'personality'.
Oh well now I'm even more confused. That just sounds like Buddhist detachment from materialism. Is the only difference that in Buddhism you are taught to not be selfish, because the self is not...
Oh well now I'm even more confused. That just sounds like Buddhist detachment from materialism.
Is the only difference that in Buddhism you are taught to not be selfish, because the self is not important, and Stoicism can arguably lead to being even more selfish, as you are focused on what you want to be within the world? Whereas Buddhism is more about letting go and accepting the world in its natural order?
I'm much less familiar with Buddhism than with Stoicism. And I am no expert on either. But here is how I see it at the moment: Stoicism is not exactly selfish, but it is very self-focused. It all...
I'm much less familiar with Buddhism than with Stoicism. And I am no expert on either. But here is how I see it at the moment:
Stoicism is not exactly selfish, but it is very self-focused. It all starts with distinguising what is in our power, and what is not. What is our own, in other words, and what is "external". Our beliefs and decisions are our own and within our control, the stoics say. Our station in life, our reputation, the actions and beliefs of other people, these are outside of our control. It is not that wen cannot effect these, but we cannot control them. Therefore, the argument goes, it is silly to place any of your self-worth and/or identity in these external things. We should worry about cultivating wisdom, courage, justice, and self control in ourselves and realise that at any point, some disaster, accident, or complete asshole can destroy the things that we do not control. Because that would say nothing about us and our virtue, there is no need to get worked up about them.
If you can get a good job acting in accord with virtue, then by all means. If you can look good and be healthy by acting in accordance with virtue, then by all means, other things being equal. But even though health, wealth, and good weather are preferred and pain, ignomy, and disaster are dispreferred, in the end these externals are indifferent. Pain or good fortune do not impact you as you.
Your rational self, your virtue, what we have in addition to being animals and that which makes us different from animals, is the only real good. So do not worry about being unjustly fired, or loosing your house in a fire you could not have prevented.
If the ideal of Buddhism is to attain a state of 'no self', then that is profoundly different from the ideal of stoicism, which is to cultivate virtue in yourself, to build the best self you can build. The similarity, I think, is that 'no self' requires letting go of your attachment to material things, while the stoic would say that attachment to material things makes no sense and is a distraction. The only real value is in virtue, and material things play no role in attaining virtue.
The way you explain it makes it sound very familiar. You kind of make it sound like a strange fundamentalist/puritanical version of existentialism. But the key difference between the two is that...
The way you explain it makes it sound very familiar. You kind of make it sound like a strange fundamentalist/puritanical version of existentialism. But the key difference between the two is that existentialism says that if you are authentically materialistic, there is no reason to fight or suppress your desires for physical things.
here's a decent intro to it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9OCA6UFE-0 The way I see it, it's about dealing with circumstances using the tools you can control -- acting rationally, not...
The way I see it, it's about dealing with circumstances using the tools you can control -- acting rationally, not emotionally. In my view, ultimately everything is connected, and our emotional responses to hurdles only ends up pulling down everything around us, instead of allowing us to progress.
This isn't to say that we are to be non-emotional, but we shouldn't allow those emotions to limit or guide us.
It's not unlike a lot of principals in formal religions like Buddhism, Sufism, etc.
I came across Stoicism in The Antidote. While it does sound good -- maintaining a sort of passive calmness regardless of circumstances, my main regret is losing out on the wide gamut of emotions...
I came across Stoicism in The Antidote. While it does sound good -- maintaining a sort of passive calmness regardless of circumstances, my main regret is losing out on the wide gamut of emotions that you can otherwise experience. I feel like I've killed a part of myself to remain passive and I'm not sure the benefits outweigh the tepid life I lead now...
As I wrote in another comment or two, passivity and detachment are not really the goal of the stoics, I believe. You are sad about bad things, no? And elated about good things? Would you be sad...
As I wrote in another comment or two, passivity and detachment are not really the goal of the stoics, I believe.
You are sad about bad things, no? And elated about good things? Would you be sad about a good thing happening? Or happy about something bad? Of course not, that makes no sense. But the stoics tell us that, in fact, we often are. It is not the emotions that are the problem, per se, it is the mistaken judgements that they are often based on that they ask us to review.
It makes no sense, they say, to be frustrated by the behaviour of your stupid boss, or annoying colleague. These things are outside of your control. It makes no sense to feel proud of posessions which are yours in large part because you have been lucky. By being mindful of the difference between what is ours and what is not, between what is within our power, and what is not, we can have the right feelings towards these things. This looks like passive detachment in a lot of situations, but only because the people who get worked up about external things are simply wrong, in the Stoic analysis.
Yes, true. This resemblance is often noted. In fact, the Wikipedia article you link to has a quote by Epictetus (one of the most famous Stoics) under the Precursors heading and notes a similar...
Yes, true. This resemblance is often noted. In fact, the Wikipedia article you link to has a quote by Epictetus (one of the most famous Stoics) under the Precursors heading and notes a similar idea in the Buddhist tradition.
An important difference, however, is that the Stoics teach that serenity, courage, and wisdom will not be granted you by the gods, but that you need to cultivate them for yourself. It requires training and practice, not prayer.
Yes! Very. (as evidenced by my commenting on every other comment in this thread :-P) I think I first learned of stoicism via Alain de Botton, his television series and --later-- the School of...
Yes! Very. (as evidenced by my commenting on every other comment in this thread :-P)
I think I first learned of stoicism via Alain de Botton, his television series and --later-- the School of Life. I read Massimo Pigliucci's How to be a Stoic, Epictetus's Encheiridion (or Handbook), some of Seneca's letters to Lucillius, and am reading Epictetus' Discourses (of which Book II is most insightful to me at the moment).
One of the things I think is right about Stoicism is the emphasis on practice (this is also the main point of Michael Puett's The Path, an overview of Chinese philosopy, which overlaps with stoic ideas). It's something you need to cultivate in yourself, a skill you must continually practice and will never fully master (the stoic 'sage', it seems, is mostly upheald as an ideal, a guide, a pole-star, and not a promise or reachable goal).
The Spock-like logical detachment that people often think is the ideal of stoicism is, in my experience, a very novice way of practicing the ideas. In many complex skills, novices first do it following 'the rules' in a very mechanistic and stilted way (in sports, for instance, music playing and --my field-- design). It's a phase you pass through on the way to something more developed. I feel I'm moving there in a few small ways myself, which is making my life more relaxed, loving, and joyous in a number of small ways.
The two things I find most difficult still/don't quite understand yet is how to act in public life (activisim) and how to develop loving relationships with stoic ideas in mind.
Haha, you mean the other party was 'stoic'? The thing is, one of the things I love about my partner is that they're very un-stoic. They're very in the moment and react honestly and explicitly...
Haha, you mean the other party was 'stoic'?
The thing is, one of the things I love about my partner is that they're very un-stoic. They're very in the moment and react honestly and explicitly before even thinking about the world around them (in a way, that's also placing concern in themselves, and not external things, I realize as I type this). The flipside of this is that they can get super-frustrated with things I consider to be unimportant and no reflection on them. I find that difficult to deal with sometimes.
Anyway, Epictetus and Seneca talk about your responsibilities towards your fellow citizens, family, friends, spouse, and children, but they don't seem to say a lot about cultivating love and deep connection with others. They can be a bit autistic, for lack of a better word.
I would highly recommend learning about Vipassana. As a long-time fan of stoicism and a recent alum of a 10-day Vipassana silent meditation retreat, I found a Vipassana practice to essentially be...
I would highly recommend learning about Vipassana. As a long-time fan of stoicism and a recent alum of a 10-day Vipassana silent meditation retreat, I found a Vipassana practice to essentially be the practice of a stoic mindset - being equanimous with every moment. It's especially useful if you commit to the daily practice.
The catch is that merely learning the theory is not enough, you must practice it. The retreat is a really effective, disciplined way to get into it.
Highlights on the Stoic concepts of feelings vs. bad emotions vs. good emotions from Breakfast with Seneca by David Fideler: Feelings (instinctual / pre-rational) Good (Rational) Emotions Bad...
Highlights on the Stoic concepts of feelings vs. bad emotions vs. good emotions from Breakfast with Seneca by David Fideler:
Epictetus said, a Stoic should not be “unfeeling like a statue.” 12 Marcus Aurelius frequently wrote about love and even wept in public. The Stoics, as a school, were known for their love for humanity. As Seneca noted, writing about the Stoics, **“No school is more kindly and gentle, none more full of love for mankind and more concerned for the common good.”**13
For the Stoics, the most primary human feeling is affection and love for others. Parents naturally feel love for their children, and human affection binds people and communities together
Feelings (instinctual / pre-rational)
For the Stoics, feelings are just feelings, neither good nor bad, and everyone experiences them. Healthy emotions are good, and based on sound, accurate judgments. For the Stoics, the real enemies are the extreme negative emotions or passions, which are based on false opinions and harmful to one’s inner character. Seneca pretty much summed up the Stoic view about negative emotions when he wrote, “Anyone enslaved to a passion is living under a tyrant.”14
Good (Rational) Emotions
“good passions” (eupatheiai in Greek). In this book, we will refer to them as good emotions, healthy emotions, or positive emotions. These include joy, cheerfulness, sociability, goodwill, and forms of friendship and love. Just like negative emotions, positive emotions are based on mental judgments. But good emotions are based on rational and accurate judgments, while negative emotions are based on false judgments. And as you might imagine, good emotions are not indifferent or bad, but good for our personality and character.
Bad (Irrational) Emotions
negative emotions arise from mental judgments, but judgments that are mistaken or false. Because they are based on false beliefs, these negative emotions are harmful to our character. In other words, they are vices.
I have experienced this love and this is a really important distinction that most people miss when first practicing stoicism or mindfulness. As someone who has been actively practicing for 15...
Exemplary
I have experienced this love and this is a really important distinction that most people miss when first practicing stoicism or mindfulness. As someone who has been actively practicing for 15 years, my favorite way to describe it is “giving your feelings space”
By space, I mean that my feelings exist in a “no judgment zone” where I don’t try to adapt my feelings to the thinking mind right away. I bring my attention fully into the moment, especially if feelings are intense.
These tools, like stoicisms teachings, are all designed to bring your attention into this moment. You are reading these words right now. How do you feel? How does the air smell? What sounds can you year.
While there are deeper concepts that can be learned, remember the core: Your power is in this moment… this “right now” that is flowing into the future.
We are all surfing a wave of space time. When we plan the future, we do it now. When we hurt or laugh over the past, we do it now. This is hard for the mind which has invented a story for is to live in. Most of us are trapped there not realizing that the world and our perception of it are two different things. When you start paying attention to now, to this moment, you start building that “space” I mentioned earlier.
The joy and love I get to share with those around me grows in that space where my mind is not obsessively thinking about the boss, or that thing I said that didn’t come out right.
In this moment, I am writing this in my back yard, in the Pacific Northwest as a plane flys over. The air is sweet and it is still a cool edge to the air.
I wish you all the best in your practice. Feel free to AMA, this practice quite literally saved my life and I’m happy to share anecdotes from my journey .
I don't as a rule buy the ideas of personality type theories, but in my case, my mother once commented on traits I had as an infant that today make sense of my stoicism as an adult. I think that...
I don't as a rule buy the ideas of personality type theories, but in my case, my mother once commented on traits I had as an infant that today make sense of my stoicism as an adult. I think that being true to one's nature is a possibility frequently overlooked in our culture of complete reinvention. And so it goes...
I could easily describe myself as a stoic, though I don't take much interest in either stoic gatekeeping (constantly asking "is this stoicism? / am I being stoic enough?") or poring over the words...
I could easily describe myself as a stoic, though I don't take much interest in either stoic gatekeeping (constantly asking "is this stoicism? / am I being stoic enough?") or poring over the words of Marcus Aurelius et al. like religious texts. Both are things I see a lot of in stoic culture online. For me, stoicism is a practical approach to life, not an identity to wear on my sleeve. I don't go out of my way to join stoicism social clubs.
Like others here have said, the core of this philosophy is recognizing what is (and isn't) within my personal sphere of control. It's helped me to roll with the punches when surprises happen in life, and reduce my overall stress level as a result. At the same time it's freed me somewhat to focus on improving things I actually do have the ability to change. In general that's made me happier, and more intentional and responsible for living the life I want to live, and not just a constantly beleaguered victim of circumstance.
I just started reading Meditations by Marcus Aurelius and it's cool so far! I believe the root of true stoicism lies in cultivating a "this too shall pass" attitude toward mostly everything, and although I think passivity in the face of adversity is a commendable virtue, I can't get behind the other side of the coin, passivity in the face of prosperity. I wanna feel things and jump up and down and get excited, and darn it, sometimes I wanna cry too! But that's the cool thing about philosophy, you can apply the positive elements to yourself and your life and if you don't feel like it you don't have to be another Seneca the Younger. It's a valuable philosophy though with a lot to teach you about yourself and your mindset.
Although I haven't read it myself my friend told me that The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck by Mark Manson does a good job of imparting wisdom with stoicism as the underlying foundation, so that might be a good introduction. I'm not big on the whole Fuck, Shit, Fucking self-help literary movement but my friend liked the book and its reputation speaks for itself. Also, you can't go wrong with the classics such as Meditations or the Enchiridion.
Elimination of all feelings is a common misconception about stoicism. The goal is not to become Vulcan. Mainly, I believe, because it's impossible. Humans are feeling animals. Denying that would be to go against nature, which is very unstoic.
I was just reading something by Seneca on this, this morning:
(Letters to Lucillius, LXXI On the Supreme Good)
Not sure which version of Meditations you got or how far you've read into it. But the one I read included an intro that made sure to explain that stoicism is not about eliminating feelings. You can and should feel happy. But just know that it's temporary and whatever is making you happy could and most likely will be taken away / gone. And don't despair when that happens.
I think you might enjoy this talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5897dMWJiSM, if you haven't seen it already. He talks about Marcus and his beliefs in a way that is absolutely captivating and seems to be completely from the top of his head.
I was always kind of put of by stoicism because for some reason, in my head it had the image of just not letting yourself enjoy anything, or caring. Then I stumbled across that video and realised that It's a lot more compassionate than I realised, and that I was quite a bit more stoic than I knew, and it wasn't a bad thing.
How to be a Stoic by Massimo Pigliucci was also my first thorough introduction. I highly recommend it. There are also a number of good talks by Massimo online, e.g. Stoicism 101.
To what extent? I mean I live in LA where personalities are abound to say the least, and people shy away from me because compared to their exaggerative bullshit I definitely seem like I have 0 personality. And you borderline have to warn people that you are quote... "DGAF"... end quote. A horrible acronym if ever there was one.
So, to reiterate, to what extent? Are you trying to reduce/minimize your personality to an almost completely neutral state? Or is it more of a materialism Buddhist thing where you don't want to react and fight what life brings and simply choose to exist in the flow state of nature?
That is not the point of stoicism as I understand it. It is in fact to maximize and cultivate your personality (virtue) based on the realization that that is what matters, and things like your reputation, bank account, looks, car, etc. should be indifferent to you. Some may be preferred indifferents, i.e. having them is preferred over not having or loosing them, but only insofar as this does not impact you yourself, that is your virtue, or 'personality'.
Oh well now I'm even more confused. That just sounds like Buddhist detachment from materialism.
Is the only difference that in Buddhism you are taught to not be selfish, because the self is not important, and Stoicism can arguably lead to being even more selfish, as you are focused on what you want to be within the world? Whereas Buddhism is more about letting go and accepting the world in its natural order?
I'm much less familiar with Buddhism than with Stoicism. And I am no expert on either. But here is how I see it at the moment:
Stoicism is not exactly selfish, but it is very self-focused. It all starts with distinguising what is in our power, and what is not. What is our own, in other words, and what is "external". Our beliefs and decisions are our own and within our control, the stoics say. Our station in life, our reputation, the actions and beliefs of other people, these are outside of our control. It is not that wen cannot effect these, but we cannot control them. Therefore, the argument goes, it is silly to place any of your self-worth and/or identity in these external things. We should worry about cultivating wisdom, courage, justice, and self control in ourselves and realise that at any point, some disaster, accident, or complete asshole can destroy the things that we do not control. Because that would say nothing about us and our virtue, there is no need to get worked up about them.
If you can get a good job acting in accord with virtue, then by all means. If you can look good and be healthy by acting in accordance with virtue, then by all means, other things being equal. But even though health, wealth, and good weather are preferred and pain, ignomy, and disaster are dispreferred, in the end these externals are indifferent. Pain or good fortune do not impact you as you.
Your rational self, your virtue, what we have in addition to being animals and that which makes us different from animals, is the only real good. So do not worry about being unjustly fired, or loosing your house in a fire you could not have prevented.
If the ideal of Buddhism is to attain a state of 'no self', then that is profoundly different from the ideal of stoicism, which is to cultivate virtue in yourself, to build the best self you can build. The similarity, I think, is that 'no self' requires letting go of your attachment to material things, while the stoic would say that attachment to material things makes no sense and is a distraction. The only real value is in virtue, and material things play no role in attaining virtue.
The way you explain it makes it sound very familiar. You kind of make it sound like a strange fundamentalist/puritanical version of existentialism. But the key difference between the two is that existentialism says that if you are authentically materialistic, there is no reason to fight or suppress your desires for physical things.
here's a decent intro to it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9OCA6UFE-0
The way I see it, it's about dealing with circumstances using the tools you can control -- acting rationally, not emotionally. In my view, ultimately everything is connected, and our emotional responses to hurdles only ends up pulling down everything around us, instead of allowing us to progress.
This isn't to say that we are to be non-emotional, but we shouldn't allow those emotions to limit or guide us.
It's not unlike a lot of principals in formal religions like Buddhism, Sufism, etc.
I came across Stoicism in The Antidote. While it does sound good -- maintaining a sort of passive calmness regardless of circumstances, my main regret is losing out on the wide gamut of emotions that you can otherwise experience. I feel like I've killed a part of myself to remain passive and I'm not sure the benefits outweigh the tepid life I lead now...
As I wrote in another comment or two, passivity and detachment are not really the goal of the stoics, I believe.
You are sad about bad things, no? And elated about good things? Would you be sad about a good thing happening? Or happy about something bad? Of course not, that makes no sense. But the stoics tell us that, in fact, we often are. It is not the emotions that are the problem, per se, it is the mistaken judgements that they are often based on that they ask us to review.
It makes no sense, they say, to be frustrated by the behaviour of your stupid boss, or annoying colleague. These things are outside of your control. It makes no sense to feel proud of posessions which are yours in large part because you have been lucky. By being mindful of the difference between what is ours and what is not, between what is within our power, and what is not, we can have the right feelings towards these things. This looks like passive detachment in a lot of situations, but only because the people who get worked up about external things are simply wrong, in the Stoic analysis.
Sounds awfully similar to what the Serenity prayer is about.
Yes, true. This resemblance is often noted. In fact, the Wikipedia article you link to has a quote by Epictetus (one of the most famous Stoics) under the Precursors heading and notes a similar idea in the Buddhist tradition.
An important difference, however, is that the Stoics teach that serenity, courage, and wisdom will not be granted you by the gods, but that you need to cultivate them for yourself. It requires training and practice, not prayer.
Yes! Very. (as evidenced by my commenting on every other comment in this thread :-P)
I think I first learned of stoicism via Alain de Botton, his television series and --later-- the School of Life. I read Massimo Pigliucci's How to be a Stoic, Epictetus's Encheiridion (or Handbook), some of Seneca's letters to Lucillius, and am reading Epictetus' Discourses (of which Book II is most insightful to me at the moment).
One of the things I think is right about Stoicism is the emphasis on practice (this is also the main point of Michael Puett's The Path, an overview of Chinese philosopy, which overlaps with stoic ideas). It's something you need to cultivate in yourself, a skill you must continually practice and will never fully master (the stoic 'sage', it seems, is mostly upheald as an ideal, a guide, a pole-star, and not a promise or reachable goal).
The Spock-like logical detachment that people often think is the ideal of stoicism is, in my experience, a very novice way of practicing the ideas. In many complex skills, novices first do it following 'the rules' in a very mechanistic and stilted way (in sports, for instance, music playing and --my field-- design). It's a phase you pass through on the way to something more developed. I feel I'm moving there in a few small ways myself, which is making my life more relaxed, loving, and joyous in a number of small ways.
The two things I find most difficult still/don't quite understand yet is how to act in public life (activisim) and how to develop loving relationships with stoic ideas in mind.
Oof. Relationships with a stoic. Guess that explains the trail of bullshit I've left behind the past 15 years.
Haha, you mean the other party was 'stoic'?
The thing is, one of the things I love about my partner is that they're very un-stoic. They're very in the moment and react honestly and explicitly before even thinking about the world around them (in a way, that's also placing concern in themselves, and not external things, I realize as I type this). The flipside of this is that they can get super-frustrated with things I consider to be unimportant and no reflection on them. I find that difficult to deal with sometimes.
Anyway, Epictetus and Seneca talk about your responsibilities towards your fellow citizens, family, friends, spouse, and children, but they don't seem to say a lot about cultivating love and deep connection with others. They can be a bit autistic, for lack of a better word.
Thanks for suggesting How to be a Stoic -- I'm just finishing it up. I love it!
I would highly recommend learning about Vipassana. As a long-time fan of stoicism and a recent alum of a 10-day Vipassana silent meditation retreat, I found a Vipassana practice to essentially be the practice of a stoic mindset - being equanimous with every moment. It's especially useful if you commit to the daily practice.
The catch is that merely learning the theory is not enough, you must practice it. The retreat is a really effective, disciplined way to get into it.
Highlights on the Stoic concepts of feelings vs. bad emotions vs. good emotions from Breakfast with Seneca by David Fideler:
Feelings (instinctual / pre-rational)
Good (Rational) Emotions
Bad (Irrational) Emotions
I have experienced this love and this is a really important distinction that most people miss when first practicing stoicism or mindfulness. As someone who has been actively practicing for 15 years, my favorite way to describe it is “giving your feelings space”
By space, I mean that my feelings exist in a “no judgment zone” where I don’t try to adapt my feelings to the thinking mind right away. I bring my attention fully into the moment, especially if feelings are intense.
These tools, like stoicisms teachings, are all designed to bring your attention into this moment. You are reading these words right now. How do you feel? How does the air smell? What sounds can you year.
While there are deeper concepts that can be learned, remember the core: Your power is in this moment… this “right now” that is flowing into the future.
We are all surfing a wave of space time. When we plan the future, we do it now. When we hurt or laugh over the past, we do it now. This is hard for the mind which has invented a story for is to live in. Most of us are trapped there not realizing that the world and our perception of it are two different things. When you start paying attention to now, to this moment, you start building that “space” I mentioned earlier.
The joy and love I get to share with those around me grows in that space where my mind is not obsessively thinking about the boss, or that thing I said that didn’t come out right.
In this moment, I am writing this in my back yard, in the Pacific Northwest as a plane flys over. The air is sweet and it is still a cool edge to the air.
I wish you all the best in your practice. Feel free to AMA, this practice quite literally saved my life and I’m happy to share anecdotes from my journey .
Edits: Typos, clarity
I'd recommend yogic teachings which are very similar to stoicism.
Books like Bhagavad Gita and Yoga Sutra - very deep.
I don't as a rule buy the ideas of personality type theories, but in my case, my mother once commented on traits I had as an infant that today make sense of my stoicism as an adult. I think that being true to one's nature is a possibility frequently overlooked in our culture of complete reinvention. And so it goes...
I could easily describe myself as a stoic, though I don't take much interest in either stoic gatekeeping (constantly asking "is this stoicism? / am I being stoic enough?") or poring over the words of Marcus Aurelius et al. like religious texts. Both are things I see a lot of in stoic culture online. For me, stoicism is a practical approach to life, not an identity to wear on my sleeve. I don't go out of my way to join stoicism social clubs.
Like others here have said, the core of this philosophy is recognizing what is (and isn't) within my personal sphere of control. It's helped me to roll with the punches when surprises happen in life, and reduce my overall stress level as a result. At the same time it's freed me somewhat to focus on improving things I actually do have the ability to change. In general that's made me happier, and more intentional and responsible for living the life I want to live, and not just a constantly beleaguered victim of circumstance.