“If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself, but to your estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment.” ― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations Meditations is a book of stoic reflections. Written by the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, the book’s text is self-addressing, like a diary. Written for himself or his son, it reads as a
I returned to this essay again and it read even richer with another visit. Reminded me of this G.K. Chesterton quote:
"Marcus Aurelius is the most intolerable of human types. He is an unselfish egoist. An unselfish egoist is a man who has pride without the excuse of passion."
It's been a while since I've read Aurelius and Seneca and so on, so I might be remembering incorrectly, but is "couching success as something that happens entirely within the ego" a fair summary of stoicism? I always took stoicism as a way to build a strong, internal foundation from which go forth into a complicated and messy world, rather than some sort of nihilistic asceticism focused on one's navel. As examples, Aurelius and Seneca were major actors in their worlds with, again, just from what I remember, rich spiritual, inner, and communal lives.
Excellent post. "Too strong a stoicism, like any individualist philosophy, scales poorly." Indeed, we are lucky that our ancestors were not strong stoics or we'd have never left the caves. The wheel is quite unstoic.
I believe in a philosophy that might be described as Stoic Transhumanism. Stoic tactics - work hard and push through pain today. Transhumanist strategy - aim towards solutions for transcending the need for work and pain.
This is difficult to read, you've missed Stoicism entirely; though to be fair to you, you didn't capitalize it a single time where the word wasn't the start of a sentence or included in a section header. Stoicism with a capital "S" is a school of Virtue Ethics, you use the word "virtue" not a single time, so, again, to be fair to you, perhaps you are talking about stoicism with a lower-case "s"; which could be summed as you have here. But you've done your readers an incredible disservice by confusing the two.
But Stoicism is not about avoiding feelings, it is about not being led by your feelings, but by your rational mind instead, having considered the feeling and it's effect on you. Likewise Marcus Aurelius himself highlights the social duty many times throughout Meditations, calling the solitary life unnatural. "Take pleasure in one thing and rest in it, in passing from one social act to another social act, thinking of God."
I would encourage you to read William B Irvine's idea of Stoicism. It matches very closely to the happiness research in that it appeals to our inability to appreciate the moment (gratitude) and savor moments (among many others). I find the 'last time meditation' to be particularly powerful and I hope you can use it to appreciate as much richness in this life as possible.
Great insights, never been a fan of stoicism (especially when used for avoiding responsibility within ones society). I'm surprised thought that Wallace's This is water is perceived as such. For me, in this piece, Wallace asks you to look again whenever you think that hell is other people. It tells you to empathise, to put yourself out of the spotlight not for avoiding responsibility but for getting exactly to what it is you can do or can't do for the folks around you.
In stoics’ defence: Besides “dichotomy of control”, they do prescribe “negative visualisation” which helps in mainly reversing hedonic treadmill and may aligns with your view of - A philosophy of noticing the world and remaining open to it. (+ appreciation of the transient nature of world).
This is an image of the aeon to come 2,000 years later, visible even at the opening of the aeon of Pisces. It corresponds also to certain symbolic aspects of Christ. Christ was pictured as a water bearer and water dispenser. To the Samaritan woman at the well he said that if she had asked him for a drink, he would have dispensed eternal living water for her. (John 4:10)
Also there is the image of a stream of water flowing from Christ's belly when his side was pierced at the Crucifixion. These images indicate that in a certain sense Christ foreshadowed Aquarius as a water dispenser. But the water he dispensed did not generate more dispensers; it generated fishes rather than water carriers because the church became the water carrier, the fish pond in which the faithful fish could swim. Who discovered water? We know who did not discover itthe fish. We can now say the person who discovered it was Aquarius. Jung discovered water.
If my reading of the symbolism is correct, the aeon of Aquarius will generate individual water carriers. The numinous reality of the psyche will no longer be carried by religious communities the church, the synagogue or the mosquebut instead it will be carried by conscious individuals. This is the idea Jung puts forward in his notion of a continuing incarnation, the idea that individuals are to become incarnating vessels of the Holy Spirit on an ongoing basis. He developed this idea more fully in the next work he wrote, "Answer to Job." But that is another story.
Thanks for this Simon! I've been drawn to stoicism and this gave my a new perspective in almost mindblowing form (i've almost been idolizing aurelius).
Thank you for this fresh reflection on stoicism. I have been influenced by the way it's been presented. You highlight honest shortcomings that lead me to further reflection.
Specifically I want to investigate the critique you level on stoicism and how it my apply to buddhism.
I returned to this essay again and it read even richer with another visit. Reminded me of this G.K. Chesterton quote:
"Marcus Aurelius is the most intolerable of human types. He is an unselfish egoist. An unselfish egoist is a man who has pride without the excuse of passion."
It's been a while since I've read Aurelius and Seneca and so on, so I might be remembering incorrectly, but is "couching success as something that happens entirely within the ego" a fair summary of stoicism? I always took stoicism as a way to build a strong, internal foundation from which go forth into a complicated and messy world, rather than some sort of nihilistic asceticism focused on one's navel. As examples, Aurelius and Seneca were major actors in their worlds with, again, just from what I remember, rich spiritual, inner, and communal lives.
Excellent post. "Too strong a stoicism, like any individualist philosophy, scales poorly." Indeed, we are lucky that our ancestors were not strong stoics or we'd have never left the caves. The wheel is quite unstoic.
I believe in a philosophy that might be described as Stoic Transhumanism. Stoic tactics - work hard and push through pain today. Transhumanist strategy - aim towards solutions for transcending the need for work and pain.
"That which is not good for the swarm, neither is it good for the bee." - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, VI 54
This is difficult to read, you've missed Stoicism entirely; though to be fair to you, you didn't capitalize it a single time where the word wasn't the start of a sentence or included in a section header. Stoicism with a capital "S" is a school of Virtue Ethics, you use the word "virtue" not a single time, so, again, to be fair to you, perhaps you are talking about stoicism with a lower-case "s"; which could be summed as you have here. But you've done your readers an incredible disservice by confusing the two.
> By Aurelius and others asking us to pay no attention to the world outside of our control,
This is not stoicism. You're attacking a strawman.
But Stoicism is not about avoiding feelings, it is about not being led by your feelings, but by your rational mind instead, having considered the feeling and it's effect on you. Likewise Marcus Aurelius himself highlights the social duty many times throughout Meditations, calling the solitary life unnatural. "Take pleasure in one thing and rest in it, in passing from one social act to another social act, thinking of God."
I would encourage you to read William B Irvine's idea of Stoicism. It matches very closely to the happiness research in that it appeals to our inability to appreciate the moment (gratitude) and savor moments (among many others). I find the 'last time meditation' to be particularly powerful and I hope you can use it to appreciate as much richness in this life as possible.
I have reached the same conclusions myself. Stoicism can easily become cowardice and abandon.
Community building is very challenging, but it is the only way to feel completely accomplished as a man.
Great insights, never been a fan of stoicism (especially when used for avoiding responsibility within ones society). I'm surprised thought that Wallace's This is water is perceived as such. For me, in this piece, Wallace asks you to look again whenever you think that hell is other people. It tells you to empathise, to put yourself out of the spotlight not for avoiding responsibility but for getting exactly to what it is you can do or can't do for the folks around you.
Excellent post.
In stoics’ defence: Besides “dichotomy of control”, they do prescribe “negative visualisation” which helps in mainly reversing hedonic treadmill and may aligns with your view of - A philosophy of noticing the world and remaining open to it. (+ appreciation of the transient nature of world).
Thoughts?
Thank you for this clear-eyed and well-argued essay.
This is an image of the aeon to come 2,000 years later, visible even at the opening of the aeon of Pisces. It corresponds also to certain symbolic aspects of Christ. Christ was pictured as a water bearer and water dispenser. To the Samaritan woman at the well he said that if she had asked him for a drink, he would have dispensed eternal living water for her. (John 4:10)
Also there is the image of a stream of water flowing from Christ's belly when his side was pierced at the Crucifixion. These images indicate that in a certain sense Christ foreshadowed Aquarius as a water dispenser. But the water he dispensed did not generate more dispensers; it generated fishes rather than water carriers because the church became the water carrier, the fish pond in which the faithful fish could swim. Who discovered water? We know who did not discover itthe fish. We can now say the person who discovered it was Aquarius. Jung discovered water.
If my reading of the symbolism is correct, the aeon of Aquarius will generate individual water carriers. The numinous reality of the psyche will no longer be carried by religious communities the church, the synagogue or the mosquebut instead it will be carried by conscious individuals. This is the idea Jung puts forward in his notion of a continuing incarnation, the idea that individuals are to become incarnating vessels of the Holy Spirit on an ongoing basis. He developed this idea more fully in the next work he wrote, "Answer to Job." But that is another story.
SZ
Thanks for this Simon! I've been drawn to stoicism and this gave my a new perspective in almost mindblowing form (i've almost been idolizing aurelius).
Thank you for this fresh reflection on stoicism. I have been influenced by the way it's been presented. You highlight honest shortcomings that lead me to further reflection.
Specifically I want to investigate the critique you level on stoicism and how it my apply to buddhism.