I don't think this is a fair criticism of Stoicisim. It definitely doesn't say ignore the outside world or things you can't change, rather acknowledge and accept them to allow the capacity to focus on the things you can change.
You're right. The Romans were generally open to stoicism because, unlike epicureanism or cynicism, stoicism wasn't seen by Romans as demanding a retreat from public affairs.
>> ... [stoicism] is a response to perceiving the breakdown of a functioning world. Their prescription for dealing with such troubles is to develop profound internal strength, and in doing so the stoic attitude can dodge some societal-level failures by compartmentalizing toward a robust individualism.
Where this author speaks of "profound internal strength", stoicism talks about ataraxia and "remedies" or techniques to achieve a state of tranquility when encountering something that disturbs that state (e.g. someone calls you an idiot). Seneca's letters, for example, talk about progressing along a path and becoming more skilled, not developing "profound internal strength".
Lastly, I wanted to say "individualism" is an anachronistic modern concept the author has insinuated into the ancient world.
The point of Stoicism isn't to avoid feeling bad about living in a failing Empire.
It's acknowledging that you can't control the world. You can only control your reaction to it and your own actions.
And putting your faith in large institutions doesn't give you that control. It just creates a illusion of control. Large institutions can embody knowledge and procedures to reduce the incidents of failures to a significant degree, but whem they do fail they amplify the effect of that failure.
For example if two people get into a dispute over land there is the potential it could devolve into violence. Most of the time this doesn't happen, but the potential is there. One or both of those people may end up being killed. They may accidentally hurt or even kill people by unhappy accident as part of their conflict.
But by and large the violence and damage is limited to the people that made the decisions.
However when large governments get into conflicts over land and become unreasonable then the potential damage is massive. Millions of people can die. Mostly innocent people who have no stake or choice in conflict and will not benefit from any outcome can be slaughtered in mass mumbers.
And what is worse is the people that make those decisions are not personally affected by it.
In the last century hundreds of millions of people died at the hands of their own governments. Far exceeding the number of victims of individual violence and criminality. And almost none of the "leaders" that made those decisions ever faced punishment or even significant personal consequences.
Most died while still in power living in relative luxury of old ages or natural diseases.
Making large institutions to try to control the world does not result in control over the world. It creates a illusion of control coupled with a potential for extreme levels of destruction.
You only want as big of a institution that is absolutely required. Nothing more, nothing less.
The only way I'd believe this is if someone ran an RCT with large institutions and without. Pontification about it otherwise is just a process of transmuting attention biases into statements of fact.
I’m doubting the author read the whole of Meditations. Maybe read an executive summary from a book club? Marcus exhorted people to be the best they could be in their role in society. To accept the vagaries of life and world around them and focus on self improvement for the benefit of self and society.
Author seems hung up on modern use of the word stoic instead of reading and contemplating on what was actually said, and importantly what was DONE by the early Stoics.
Like other have mentioned here, the author seems to have missed some core tenets of stoicism.
Stoicism, nihilism, various forms of the Buddhist tradition all seem to focus on the message: "You are the leaf, not the river".
You can't control the river/universe. It will happen with or without you. Worrying about it or what it will do to you is almost a waste of time and energy. Like if the sun were to explode right now, it almost wouldn't warrant reaction. Because the outcome is set. Any reaction is going to be erased in 8 minutes.
On a much smaller scale, you also can't control other people. They're going to do their things. If something they do affects you, do what you can to mitigate or enhance the effects depending on if the results are wanted or not. Like if I were to get fired from my job, there's little I can do to change that outcome. Even if I wanted to. So there's no point to dwell on it. I need to focus on the next thing now. I would pack up my things, scrub my work machine, turn it in, and go home to look for a new job. No crying, no yelling, etc. Disappointment, sure, but I got shit to do.
I'm curious why you think the author misrepresents/misunderstands stoicism on this point.
The entire piece is that Stoicism is an individual's philosophy -- one that solves an individual's struggles. The philosophy helps confront that which you can't control...but the author is arguing that it will tempt you to throw up your hands, that you can't control anything.
The short of it is that Stoicism encourages an individual to draw within themselves and create a worldview that is acceptable. All well and good for the individual, but the world's problems will be fixed by collective action -- not individuals withdrawing.
Too much Stoic navel gazing might decrease the likelihood you join the community action board.
"Solution: To combat these inhuman forces you must summon inhuman willpower: Master fasting, meditation, discipline, etc."
This is a modern mischaracterization of stoicism. Mainly because "non-response" is usually interpreted as some sort of strength of will. Even you, you see stoicism as some sort of withdrawal. It's not.
It's not about rejecting the outside world, it's about accepting the outside world. And accepting that the outside world is just that, outside. Being upset at the past is an exercise in futility. It's wasted emotion. Wasted energy.
Stoicism does not reject collective action. What is war but a collective action. And Marucs Aurelius waged him some war. But let's pretend he lost a battle. Well, getting angry isn't going to help. It's not productive. Why did you lose? Can you change things to not lose again? Etc.
Accept what you cannot change. Desire to change the unalterable is the core of suffering.
And sure, anything misapplied or applied too heavily can have bad outcomes. But that's true in all cases. We need water to live, yet we can also drown in it.
But that's life really. There is no "answer". Especially one that means you've "solved" life. Life isn't something to be solved. Life is a river. And you are just a leaf upon it. And sometimes you might get hung up on a rock, but then an eddy will dislodge you and you will continue on down the river.
As a fresh reader of Marcus Aurelius I'm glad I understand that this criticism is poor. "Stoics do not deny themselves pleasure per se, but by denying importance to things outside of their control, they make it easy to inadvertently do so." That's not true. It's clear in the writings that the stoics were completely empathetic but they always kept a logical point of view meaning they wouldn't rant in god for example and eventually accept the harsh reality.
I vehemently disagree with this "Their prescription for dealing with such troubles is to develop profound internal strength, and in doing so the stoic attitude can dodge some societal-level failures by compartmentalizing toward a robust individualism."
Very early in the meditations Marcus talks about how we need to work harmoniously with other people, even surly or disagreeable people, rather than turn our back on or ignore them. He likens it to the upper and lower teeth working with each other. And there is a similar appeal to accepting and working within the confines of nature. He talks about understanding yourself, your place in the world, and what you constitute in the world.
To me, the appeal of the stoic philosophy is to tamp down all of the negative and unproductive ideation that one is prone to, so that you might focus on things which are actually important, and may in some way improve the world.
Marcus Aurelius does not recommend disengagement from the world. He was the last great emperor of Rome, for crying out loud.
Heuristic: it is always possible to write an article “X is not Enough” because, of course, no X embodies all possible nice things. Nevertheless, stoicism helps society go.
> Problem: The modern world contains abundant food, screens, advertisements practically weaponized to influence you, endless games and drugs.
> Solution: To combat these inhuman forces you must summon inhuman willpower: Master fasting, meditation, discipline, etc.
The HTML formatting suggests that this is a quote from some stoic philosophy source, which it isn't; the quotes themselves are also not found anywhere on the Internet. Seems it's the author's own musings (EDIT: it is, quote: "so please indulge a summary") posing to be some sort of truth, which then is used to justify the rest of the article.
Readit News
>> ... [stoicism] is a response to perceiving the breakdown of a functioning world. Their prescription for dealing with such troubles is to develop profound internal strength, and in doing so the stoic attitude can dodge some societal-level failures by compartmentalizing toward a robust individualism.
Where this author speaks of "profound internal strength", stoicism talks about ataraxia and "remedies" or techniques to achieve a state of tranquility when encountering something that disturbs that state (e.g. someone calls you an idiot). Seneca's letters, for example, talk about progressing along a path and becoming more skilled, not developing "profound internal strength".
Lastly, I wanted to say "individualism" is an anachronistic modern concept the author has insinuated into the ancient world.
The point of Stoicism isn't to avoid feeling bad about living in a failing Empire.
It's acknowledging that you can't control the world. You can only control your reaction to it and your own actions.
And putting your faith in large institutions doesn't give you that control. It just creates a illusion of control. Large institutions can embody knowledge and procedures to reduce the incidents of failures to a significant degree, but whem they do fail they amplify the effect of that failure.
For example if two people get into a dispute over land there is the potential it could devolve into violence. Most of the time this doesn't happen, but the potential is there. One or both of those people may end up being killed. They may accidentally hurt or even kill people by unhappy accident as part of their conflict.
But by and large the violence and damage is limited to the people that made the decisions.
However when large governments get into conflicts over land and become unreasonable then the potential damage is massive. Millions of people can die. Mostly innocent people who have no stake or choice in conflict and will not benefit from any outcome can be slaughtered in mass mumbers.
And what is worse is the people that make those decisions are not personally affected by it.
In the last century hundreds of millions of people died at the hands of their own governments. Far exceeding the number of victims of individual violence and criminality. And almost none of the "leaders" that made those decisions ever faced punishment or even significant personal consequences.
Most died while still in power living in relative luxury of old ages or natural diseases.
Making large institutions to try to control the world does not result in control over the world. It creates a illusion of control coupled with a potential for extreme levels of destruction.
You only want as big of a institution that is absolutely required. Nothing more, nothing less.
Author seems hung up on modern use of the word stoic instead of reading and contemplating on what was actually said, and importantly what was DONE by the early Stoics.
FTR I am not a Stoic - I’m Buddhist.
Stoicism, nihilism, various forms of the Buddhist tradition all seem to focus on the message: "You are the leaf, not the river".
You can't control the river/universe. It will happen with or without you. Worrying about it or what it will do to you is almost a waste of time and energy. Like if the sun were to explode right now, it almost wouldn't warrant reaction. Because the outcome is set. Any reaction is going to be erased in 8 minutes.
On a much smaller scale, you also can't control other people. They're going to do their things. If something they do affects you, do what you can to mitigate or enhance the effects depending on if the results are wanted or not. Like if I were to get fired from my job, there's little I can do to change that outcome. Even if I wanted to. So there's no point to dwell on it. I need to focus on the next thing now. I would pack up my things, scrub my work machine, turn it in, and go home to look for a new job. No crying, no yelling, etc. Disappointment, sure, but I got shit to do.
I'm curious why you think the author misrepresents/misunderstands stoicism on this point.
The entire piece is that Stoicism is an individual's philosophy -- one that solves an individual's struggles. The philosophy helps confront that which you can't control...but the author is arguing that it will tempt you to throw up your hands, that you can't control anything.
The short of it is that Stoicism encourages an individual to draw within themselves and create a worldview that is acceptable. All well and good for the individual, but the world's problems will be fixed by collective action -- not individuals withdrawing.
Too much Stoic navel gazing might decrease the likelihood you join the community action board.
"Solution: To combat these inhuman forces you must summon inhuman willpower: Master fasting, meditation, discipline, etc."
This is a modern mischaracterization of stoicism. Mainly because "non-response" is usually interpreted as some sort of strength of will. Even you, you see stoicism as some sort of withdrawal. It's not.
It's not about rejecting the outside world, it's about accepting the outside world. And accepting that the outside world is just that, outside. Being upset at the past is an exercise in futility. It's wasted emotion. Wasted energy.
Stoicism does not reject collective action. What is war but a collective action. And Marucs Aurelius waged him some war. But let's pretend he lost a battle. Well, getting angry isn't going to help. It's not productive. Why did you lose? Can you change things to not lose again? Etc.
Accept what you cannot change. Desire to change the unalterable is the core of suffering.
And sure, anything misapplied or applied too heavily can have bad outcomes. But that's true in all cases. We need water to live, yet we can also drown in it.
But that's life really. There is no "answer". Especially one that means you've "solved" life. Life isn't something to be solved. Life is a river. And you are just a leaf upon it. And sometimes you might get hung up on a rock, but then an eddy will dislodge you and you will continue on down the river.
Very early in the meditations Marcus talks about how we need to work harmoniously with other people, even surly or disagreeable people, rather than turn our back on or ignore them. He likens it to the upper and lower teeth working with each other. And there is a similar appeal to accepting and working within the confines of nature. He talks about understanding yourself, your place in the world, and what you constitute in the world.
To me, the appeal of the stoic philosophy is to tamp down all of the negative and unproductive ideation that one is prone to, so that you might focus on things which are actually important, and may in some way improve the world.
Heuristic: it is always possible to write an article “X is not Enough” because, of course, no X embodies all possible nice things. Nevertheless, stoicism helps society go.
> Problem: The modern world contains abundant food, screens, advertisements practically weaponized to influence you, endless games and drugs.
> Solution: To combat these inhuman forces you must summon inhuman willpower: Master fasting, meditation, discipline, etc.
The HTML formatting suggests that this is a quote from some stoic philosophy source, which it isn't; the quotes themselves are also not found anywhere on the Internet. Seems it's the author's own musings (EDIT: it is, quote: "so please indulge a summary") posing to be some sort of truth, which then is used to justify the rest of the article.