How to Deal with Tragedy - Stoicism | Philosophy Tube

When awful things happen, can letting go of your emotions and embracing Ancient Greek rationalism be the answer?
Ethics Playlist: tinyurl.com/pnou49m
Subscribe! kzbin.info_c...
Patreon: / philosophytube
Audible: www.audibletrial.com/Philosoph...
FAQ: / 460163027465168
Facebook: PhilosophyTu...
Twitter: @PhilosophyTube
Email: [e-mail]
Google+: google.com/+thephilosophytube
realphilosophytube.tumblr.com
Recommended Reading:
Suggested Reading:
Much of the original work of the Ancient Stoics and the later Roman commentators is freely available online, or can be found in anthologies of Hellenistic Philosophy.
For a general explanation/history you might like:
Stoicism - John Sellars
If you or your organisation would like to financially support Philosophy Tube in distributing philosophical knowledge to those who might not otherwise have access to it in exchange for credits on the show, please get in touch!
Music: 'Show your Moves' and 'Pamgea' by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
‘The Day I Die - Remastered’ by TechnoAxe - tinyurl.com/kkrsfgg
Title Animation by Amitai Angor AA VFX - / dvdangor2011
Any copyrighted material should fall under fair use for educational purposes or commentary, but if you are a copyright holder and believe your material has been used unfairly please get in touch with us and we will be happy to discuss it.

[@awesomesauce3951]

stoicism: it do be like that sometimes

[@N1CKSO]

I always considered myself a stoic type, however my approach to it is slightly different. When bad things happen to me that are out of my control, like a dead pet or cancer, I do think:"Just go with it, stay calm, ain't nothing you can do". However its not because i believe the world is absolutely rational, but absolutely chaotic. Same outcome i guess, but it comes from a very different place.

[@domais68]

My father is huge into the practice of Stoicism. As a long-time philosophy professor, he has been stoic for so long that it's second nature to him. Stoicism, for practical purposes, is really just a coping mechanism to stay sane while dealing with life's disappointments and darker side. It has served my father very well for a long time and then, my mother and the love of his life, got cancer, suffered terribly and died. My painful observation is that stoicism works well as a model for pain but only to an extent. It doesn't appear to help much with death/tragedy. The only thing I've seen seem to work with severe grief is the absolute belief in God and His plan. Two months after my mother died, my 40 year old wife got a fluke kidney infection and, despite doctors saying it was not life-threatening, it killed her. Her parents are/were devastated (as am I) but they absolutely believe that their daughter's death was God's will. I don't share those blind beliefs. Any thoughts on stoicism and its relation to death would be welcomed. Thanks for reading my comment.

[@DuchAmagi]

Epictetus was a Stoic who thought that you could imagine everyday your relatives were dead so when it would finally happen you would be mentally prepared.

[@juliankane310]

For dealing with the death of loved ones, Epictetus believed the key to avoiding sadness/pain/depression was to frame such loss in terms of the person's most general qualities. If my parents die tomorrow, I should remember them as people, recognize that there are still people alive, and thus realize that I have lost nothing which cannot still be fulfilled in life. Obviously, one could challenge this view by claiming that the particularities of people (and things?) are what give us pleasure in life. I don't love my parents as people, I love them as my parents. However, I don't believe we can discount Epictetus' view completely; part of moving on from the trauma of loss is to regain the desire/ability to form close relationships with others. Isn't this somewhat similar to the view of Epictetus? On the other hand, building relationships in a Stoic fashion ought to be done with the acknowledgement that relationships can end at any moment (which is true, of course) and that we should be perfectly content that they will end. Is that really possible? Can you commit to a relationship KNOWING that it will end, or do all relationships include a certain degree of delusion? In any case, we should avoid anxiety at the proposition of loss, that is the quickest route to an unhappy life for the Stoics.

[@johnmiller7453]

The way the stoics dealt with pain and dying was to step out the door and avoid the worst of it. That makes perfect sense to me. I don't plan on any slow painful death if I can take things in my own hand and end my suffering. Suicide was not taboo to the stoics.

[@mauricestanley6859]

Faith in God, Christ, helps, I think. "Help thou mine unbelief."

[@ModaIitsu]

I'm seing strong relations between Stoicism and Zen Buddhism.

[@yunglynda1326]

Ari I was thinking the same thing!

[@Deeplycloseted435]

I am accused of being stoic, eventually in every relationship that I’ve had. It makes people angry, that I don’t get upset. They want me to be upset. They want me to emotionally erupt on them, because in their mind, I don’t care. Couldn’t be further from the truth. If a gigantic insult is hurled my way, I usually choose to think carefully before responding. I recently ended a 4 year relationship when a week after an argument, she tells me that she is looking at apartments (aka, I’m moving out fucker), and my reply of, “If you feel that this is what you need to do, I won’t get in the way, and will help you any way I can.” It infuriated her! What she heard was, “Oh please....move out!” What she wanted was, “Oh please don’t leave me!” Its strange to me how sometimes people don’t listen to the words that are spoken, and create meanings that don’t exist. Anyhow, she moved out in a huff a couple of months later, and I helped her.

[@billjoe5991]

Well that’s because people aren’t logically rational in that sense. Most humans think through their emotions or experiences

[@vib2119]

I can see why she didn't like it. Your reaction to her plan to leave seems an awful lot like you're just indifferent to the existence of your relationship. You treated her plan to leave as if she had already decided to leave and there's nothing you can do about it and then applied Stoicism. Instead should have done what you could to save the relationship (if you liked the relationship) I think your applying it wrongly too, atleast in the context of relationship. Despite the practice of Stoicism, you still feel emotion and those emotion should be communicated in close relationship, for that relationship to hold. Intimacy is necessary, even if it leads to you being vulnerable. If you don't want that then mention it beforehand. I don't think Stoicism has a lot of room intimate relationships in the first place. Anyways communication is the key to relationship, communicating vulnerability, intimacy, emotions, ideas, thoughts...just about everything. I would just recommend just to talk it out completely with your partner, and if you can't do that then maybe someone whose an expert in relationships. That's is if you want to fix and if you dont, then imo you are being too Stoic.

[@vib2119]

To put it shortly, relationships require you to be human and from you comment, I think you try a lot to be Stoic than human. With you patner, you should communicate your emotions before you process them through Stoicism. If I throw my favorite cup away, I still feel sad. And then if my partner asks how I feel, I don't say "the fate of the cup is out of my control, but my reaction is" because thats my feeling after processing it through Stoicism. I just say the first thing that comes "I am sad...that was my favorite cup".

[@moartems5076]

As an autistic person, i can empathize with these situations

[@lyndsieannette957]

@@moartems5076 Same and same

[@Theo_Caro]

Oh man olly... the Avatar clips. They make me happy.

[@PhilosophyTube]

+T. H. Caro Me too XD My girlfriend and I more or less marathoned the whole thing. We're on Legend of Korra now and not quite as enamoured with it.

[@DampeS8N]

+Philosophy Tube Korra gets better. It is certainly more uneven. It at least answers the question of "Avatar of what?" finally.

[@Theo_Caro]

+Philosophy Tube Yes, I have marathoned it many times over. But watching them as they came out was the best. :D @Korra I wasn't as big of a fan of the show either. They ended season 2 like it was the end of the show, which broke any kind of continuity with season 3 and 4. Ultimately I think the big difference when it comes to plotline between The Last Airbender and Legend of Korra was with the original Michael and Bryan planned out (at least generally) what was going to happen from the beginning; it was always going to be a three season show. But in Korra, each season has it's own story arc, and at the end they were grasping for straws to find ideas. This and the plain fact that it's sequel is why a lot people don't like it as much. If you want good after the show media to consume, I recommend the graphic novels that where written by Gene Yang in cooperation with Michael and Bryan: The Promise, The Search, and The Rift. They were really quite excellent, and I don't normally like graphic novels. And we've talked about hedonism quite a bit; I'm down for "Should prisoners get the vote?"

[@Theo_Caro]

+William Brall I don't know. I mean why does the fate of the universe have to hang in the balance? The avatar is like the UN embodied into a single person. And why did she leave the portals open? She was just like "let's flip a coin to decide." I mean the portals being closed were never really the problem, her jerk face uncle was.

[@MysticMuttering]

Stoic thought has helped me in my life without recourse to the metaphysics beyond the idea that I seem to be a part of nature. Nature seems to be, by and large, out of my control. What I seem to have some measure of control over is my reaction to things in the world - so, I modulate my attention, my perception, my thoughts about them, and my reactions to suit my needs in the moment. This correlates with an interesting bit of linguistics. In Irish Gaelic, one doesn't say "I am sad." Rather, the construction is "A sadness has come over me." Making that quantum leap can make all the difference.

[@elhamhussainemy5116]

"Sadness has come over me", I will hold on to this thought actually. Thank you for sharing.

[@arasharfa]

great comment!

[@TinoBacela]

I love stoicism as a operating system for your life. Most of the stoic books by the ancient stoics weren't meant to be books, because it was something they were constantly trying to put into practice and not just tell others about. That's what I like so much about it. Its practicality.

[@StephenDeagle]

The most useful aspect I took from Stoicism was the notion that we should familiarize ourselves with what is and isn't within our control. Epictetus especially emphasized the importance of controlling one’s desires and eventually even freeing oneself from them. A meaningful life is a happy life, a life without disappointments. But desire for power over things one has little to no control over stands in the way of our happiness, as disappointments are bound to arise. I’d been so disappointed up till then. Desire itself, he wrote, is at the root of our discontent. Since desire is within one’s control, however, one can choose to desire only those goals known to be attainable.

[@Beauweir]

Why did you miss out the importance of indifference and how Stoicism directly inspired Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy and Cognitive Behaviour Therapy? The fact that it is present somewhat in acceptance commitment therapy as well, makes it perhaps the most successful philosophy for combating mental illness from the western tradition. Also, I don't think your characterization of stoics as being like spock is accurate. The ideal stoic sage is said to be a convivial person who is "all things to all men". More of a cheerful buddha character than a stone face spock character. As the ideal stoic sage is the highest expression of the stoic ideals, it is necessary for him to be radical in his ability to reason and also in his ability to socialise successfully. He mastering his passions, means he is able to make and keep friends more successfully. I would recommend people read Donald Robertson for a modern interpretation and also check out online free PDFs of Seneca and Epictetus.

[@danielmurillo9579]

I think his approach is a more academic one. But yes, there has been a revival of stoicism in past years, including CBT. On a personal level I think the new approach is more aligned with the Stoicism's (or in general much of greek philosophy) initial approach: how live the good life.

[@RobertF-]

Very interesting comment. Please elaborate if you see these replies.

[@danielmurillo9579]

Well, Ollie basically dismisses the whole notion of Stoicism by saying that it's metaphysics is wrong, i.e., it's very foundations are wrong, ergo, their conclusions are wrong. I, of course, agree with the fact that their metaphysics is BS. Nevertheless, some people, in recent years, have revived Stoicism, arguing that in life you will experience pain, disappointment, and that life is, in general, is difficult. Taking this premise as true (and not their metaphyscis) they suggest practicing stoicism in order to train ourselves to deal with these realities in a more healthier way. To be stoic, people argue, is a passive understanding of the world, and expecting every possible outcome, specially the ones we wouldn't enjoy; so, if those undesirable outcomes do in fact occur, we will be 'immunized'. That doesn't mean that things won't upset us, it means we won't be taken by such a surprise, and the handling of our emotions will be easier. Marcus Aurelius began every day repeating to himself: "Today I'll meet unpleasant people" or something like that lol. Regarding the CBT thing, I think their inventors did actually say that they where inspired by stoicism.

[@danielmurillo9579]

If all those ideas remind you of asceticism, like Buddhism, is bc they are, in my opinion, very similar ideas. One of the core features of Buddhism is that "All life is dukkha". Dukkha meaning suffering, disappointment, difficulty.

[@MirzaBorogovac]

Beauweir From what I have heard, character of Spock is actually based on Stoic ideal. Also, Buddhism is a vague BS that says nothing specific but implies some vague mystical goodness. Many stoics were not what we would consider to be 'Good' people'. Similarly, Stoic meditation is the opposite of mindful meditation. Stoic meditation asks you to imagine the worst outcomes and how you would deal with them if they were to happen. Mindfulness meditation asks you to be aware of present moment and to observe thing that happen without judgment, etc.

[@Interabderian]

Buddhists are often rather stoic without the belief that any matter exists. One version might be 'If you let things affect you negatively then you will be sad, so don't let things affect you. If you get excited about somet things then you will be unhappy when you are no longer excited. Don't get excited, don't get involved in changing emotions, just be content'. Buddhists might end up saying very similar things to stoics when advising someone about life problems.

[@Tre_Storm_Art]

I try to stay stoic in the face of tragedy simply due to the idea that when something happens I can't go back and change it. I subscribe to the "accept that which cannot change, change that which can be" line of thinking. So when a family member passes, I mourn but accept the new reality I'm faced with, and move forward.

[@curtissjamesd]

The distinction between "eliminating passions" and "not allowing passions to rule you" is an important one that I feel like was missed here. If I could be presumptuous enough to recommend some supplemental reading I would highly recommend "How to Think Like a Roman Emperor" by Donald Robertson, there's a lot of Stoic roots in CBT and Robertson gives a great overview of it

[@tostiheld]

jeez olly, lookin good man. been away for a few months and it's like a whole new person took over

[@PhilosophyTube]

+hi i'm thom That's kind of you! How so?

[@aagantuk7370]

You're Thom?

[@CoreyAnton]

Great video. Many thanks. Chrysippus taught that we can extirpate the passions by removing false belief. It is not, that is, about "controlling" emotion so much as understanding passions as symptoms of false belief.

[@tillbrainman6049]

Great video. Stoicism is amazing. I love Epictetus. Stoicism from a former slave. he gives us a fascinating view into that world. Marcus Aurelius as well. A philosopher king. It may be worth your time to briefly research Tendai and Nichiren Buddhism as the similarities between those specific schools of Buddhism and ancient Stoicism are worthy of note.

[@DampeS8N]

Hedonism. As a Hedonist myself, it would make me happy to see you do it. And that's all the reason I need.

[@zackcohn]

+William Brall I see what you did there. I have a hedonistic approach to life but it also takes into account the hedonism of other people as mattering too. Maybe it only matters because I'm happy to see other people being happy as well. Consider this a vote for the subject Olly! :)

[@zackcohn]

Good to know, looks like a video on it will help me out :)

[@DampeS8N]

Cure4Living You don't seem to understand Hedonism. It is about maximal pleasure, not immediate pleasure. Being healthy lengthens your life, which allows for more time for pleasure. Working any job means money which allows for more pleasure. Hedonism also need not be selfish, other people's pleasure bring me pleasure, so it makes sense for me to give of some of my pleasure to help others achieve pleasure, this balance also answers the question of why charity is good but sacrificing your own pleasure entirely for others less fortunate is not. Personally, I was able to find a job that pays very well and is also a joy for me to perform. I make websites for video games. I'm also typing this while in bed, which I have an 8 by 6 foot rear-projected screen at the foot of.

[@andygreen7314]

Vermoo303 no a true epicurean is about avoiding discomfort not indulging in pleasure. Indulging in pleasure and the seeking of pleasure when there is a lack of it is a cause of discomfort and therefore not in line with being an epicurean.

[@andygreen7314]

There is no such thing as being a hedonist, that's a fallacy because a true hedonist could only cause his own distruction. The pursuit of pleasure is the pursuit of a dopamine high centering a life with this as the goal is centering your life on an addiction and cannot lead to a productive or full filling one. Contentment is the only intrinsic good in life, and contentment happiness and pleasure are 3 separate states even if there may be some overlap.

[@paciugo00]

First of all, congratulations for the channel, I discovered it a few days ago and can't stop watching the videos! Second, sorry for my english. The easy way to pronounce correctly most greek words is to say letter by letter ("pneuma" has an exeption in that general rule since u is pronounced as v in this case). "Pneuma" in greek is also spirit and the holly spirit is the "agio pneuma" and also has the same root with "anapnoi" (breath) and "pneumonas" (lung). Also "stoikos" leterary means "OF the covered walkway". I thought you might like to know that. Keep up the good work and thank you for all that knowledge!

[@TheCreatinator]

yaay. you should do more of this long lecture-y vids. the internet needs them.

[@Concatenate]

To take it a step further, Stoics don't necessarily believe that bad things happen to them. Rather, all of the good and bad in the universe exist within YOU and it's how you decide to respond to what has happened to you that becomes good or bad. A college football player, for instance, got hit and lost the ability to use his arm for athletics. His doctor told him he'll never use that arm again, but he completely disagreed and told the doctor he'll use that arm for the rest of his life. He became a motivational speaker and talks about that hit he took and all of his NFL dreams going away but the injury actually opened up other doors for him. A very Stoic response indeed. The constant pursuit of excellence in response to an event. And to the detachment point. I think it's important to remember that Stoics preach on what we can control. What is in our direct control is actually very little, it's how we respond to a stimulus, either with words or physically. Everything else we can be indifferent to because they are not within our direct control. I don't have to have feelings or opinions on EVERYTHING. I can be indifferent if I choose to be and only focus on my ability to react with high mindedness to all of the events that happen to me. Interesting stuff, I love Stoicism and have really embraced its application in my life. It's really amazing.

[@miamiamoto9769]

This is awesome. Thank you for this video. I enjoyed watching and listening to it a lot!

[@kderoder]

You say that the stoics didn't believe in free will, but actually they were sort of the first compatibilists. According to the stoics free will and determinism are not opposed to each other.

[@PhilosophyTube]

+MrSleepy Yeah, that was a bad bit of writing on my part: I meant free will in the intuitive sense of people being able to do other than they do, but you're right I should have been clearer.

[@Nanook128]

Compatibilists are just fence sitters who don't want to acknowledge that we live in a deterministic universe.

[@kderoder]

@@Nanook128 I don't get your point, compatibilists are for the most part also determinists. Free will and determinism are compatible according to them.

[@Nanook128]

@@kderoder I don't like compatiblists because they are trying to reconcile two ideas that cannot be reconciled. The idea that all actions are predetermined and the idea that humans have free will are mutually exclusive.

[@kderoder]

@@Nanook128 Typical philosophers answer here but it all depends on what you mean by 'free will'. If you mean free from coercion or manipulation like compatibilists do then it's not mutually exclusive with determinism.

[@elijahsells6305]

I would say there is a decent argument from practicality on the side of stoicism. Whether aligning one's will/expectations such that one cannot be hurt by misfortune is effective or not may be up for debate, but if it is, that seems reason enough to adopt or consider it a viable option, metaphysics aside. Great video, love your channel!

[@LarfleezeOrangestein]

One of your better videos. Very accurate and I didn't find any logical fallacies or biases, good job. Go on teaching Stoicism mate! (You should talk about Stoic sages or "monks" as well)

[@TheManifoldCuriosity]

From Marcus Aurelius - 'Whatever happens, happens rightly.' I am so grateful to Stoicism. No school of thought is able to console me and inspire me to anywhere near the same degree. I was talking about Aurelius the other day in a video, which reminded me of how practical it alI can be. I even think the idea of the universe being composed of fiery pneuma has some merit to it; after all, Carl Sagan said that we are all made of 'star stuff' :)

[@Nathaniel2Leinahtan1]

One thing that comes to mind is this: can you be Stoic, while believing that the world is irrational? suppose you're an atheist and you believe that there is no metaphysical reason beyond cause and effect. All the while you accept that things happen, obey your emotions and all the other Stoic ideologies. You accept that there is no reason for an accident, so you don't concern yourself with it and try to focus on how you can change the existing world. Is that still Stoicism? Maybe not, instead it could be some other concept I don't know the name of

[@zachmieszala852]

I would love to see hedonism. As a realativly new subscriber, i love the channel and watch everything you post with eager enthusiasm. so much so, that i am now a patreon backer. the one thing i would like to challenge you to do is take a look at eastern philosophy, it's a field of particular interest for me, and i would love to see the way you (and the Philoso-fans) tackle the subject of the Buddha or Lao Tzu.

[@yafietabraha2716]

You know, Spinoza's work is a great rehashing and development of Stoicism, so let's just roll with him.

[@antwainclarke3406]

you won a subscriber today simply because you used Avatar clips in this video. Goddamn I love that show

[@PhilosophyTube]

It's freaking great!

[@hian]

I think I can certainly make arguments for stoicism that do not rely on stoic metaphysics, relying instead only on what we know about reality through the hard sciences and psychology/neuroscience - 1. The world is inherently a "factory of suffering" from the human perspective I.E human psychological well-being is constantly challenged by reality because reality, with its natural disasters, the finite nature of life, the impending expansion and death of the universe, diseases etc. produce factors that impair human psychological well-being. 2. Lack of psychological well-being often result in impaired social development which in turn often leads to anti-social behavior among humans, which in turn, again, impairs human psychological well-being. 3. Granted 1 and 2, it's likely impossible for humans to attain a state of perpetual psychological well-being in the universe as it is regardless of our efforts to change ourselves or our environment. 4. Granted 1-3, human's response to this reality is limited to a certain set of actions. A.) learning how to cope with reality as is or B.) trying to shape our reality in such a way that we do not have to cope with it. However, granted 1-3, it is not realistic, if even possible to make our reality one which the cycle of mental suffering is no longer a factor at all. 5. Granted 1-4, our only viable option for living without capitulating to the suffering inherent to our condition, is learning how to cope with it. Coping with suffering, I would say, is what stoicism is about. Now, that being said, I am not a stoic - I see stoicism as a double-edged sword. It's necessary for humans to learn how to cope with suffering in life because there really is no other alternative since suffering cannot be eradicated entirely, however that does not mean that there is no suffering that can be alleviated. Certain kinds certainly can. So on the other side, trying to endure past your emotional limits as a human being, despite there possibly being other solutions has extremely detrimental effects on human beings - a good example of that being the ridiculous suicide rates among men. This can be addressed, but it cannot be addressed by more stoicism. Besides, the biggest problem with stoic meta-physics essentially ruins the entire school of thought because of its appeals to rationality as a value in and of itself, which is an exercise in tortured reasoning. After all, rationality is, in and of itself, a derivative of value. Values are the basic factor of human motivation, and what logically follows from the values, is what is rational. Rationality in a vacuum is not a meaningful concept. If I want to die, the rational thing for me to do is to kill myself. If I want to live, the rational thing for me to do is to persist living. If I have no wants or desires I.E values, there is no rational for me to do anything at all. To say that reason is the highest value is nonsensical because reason is not a value at all - it is the mechanism we apply in order to act consistently with values in order to achieve goals.

[@christopherlee9785]

Beyond it's metaphysical reliance for "proof" of it's truth and value, I believe it doesn't need them to be a worthwhile philosophical approach and way of approaching life. What I mean is: human emotions (while beautiful in many regards) can and do often lead to a lot of self-imposed suffering and rash decision making. If we set out to control those emotional urges I believe it would be/is very beneficial to help navigate life. To step back from a circumstance, from an immediate, emotional response can aid in decision making and help achieve a more reasonable response, and ultimately outcome. I know from my experience, if I had employed a more Stoic-based response to encountering life's events, and decisions, would have been spared a lot of (in-hindsight) bad decisions and needles suffering. While commonly viewed as a "cold approach to life" (in its rationality) by many, I've found it to be beneficial in many regards. *Please pardon my punctuation mistakes, I have a TBI.

[@zackcohn]

(tl;dr version: You don't need metaphysics to practice Stoicism as the practice allows you to most objectively guide your life. Instead of believing in Maximal Rationality you can act in the most rational way to achieve the ends you think are best for yourself and humanity. Controlling fear lets you move forward with confidence. Controlling pleasure lets you move forward without addiction. Controlling desire let you move forward without envy. You do not have to let your emotions control you to feel them fully nor is controlling them a rejection.) Stoicism seems to be almost exactly what I've come to as the right way to approach the world. People are often surprised by how little phases me and wonder why I don't express more emotion in stressful or awful situations. I feel emotion intensely despite what people around me see. It isn't that stoics don't feel but rather, I think, that they can manage what they feel more effectively. You asked if there were arguments for Stoicism without their metaphysics being involved. It seems you're asking if their methodology itself can be practiced without the belief in a rationally organized Universe/God and a personal embodiment of that through our Consciousness/Pneuma. Seeing as how I don't believe in any form of God or Force that orders the universe it seems that my approach to life is evidence that Stoic methods and beliefs don't need each other. (You could call me an atheist, yes. Is being an atheist important to me? No. It just is.) Maximal Rationality is an interesting concept. If you believe that everything has a reason and purpose then whatever happens was supposed to happen and therefore is rational. There is comfort in that thought, as anything bad is destined to happen and important to achieve Maximal Rationality even if it isn't clear how. It seems that this belief helps reign in fear and allows detachment more easily. Without that belief detachment is still possible but rationality has to move from a universal rationality to a personal one. My own approach is similar to Maximal Rationality except it doesn't say what has happened should have. The philosopher Douglas Adams said it perfectly with his statement "whatever happens, happens." Nothing is supposed to happen, but everything that does is a fixed event in time. With that in mind worrying about the past or what happened in it is pointless. It can cause fear yes, but nothing I do can change what exists. Therefore I (and only I) have the choice to either control my fear of the past or I let it consume me. One of these seems more ideal. A little fear is not a bad thing of course (provided it is useful...a respectful fear of poisonous snakes, not abject fear whenever thinking about a snake). What matters is being able to effect the future as effectively as possible without emotion hindering or warping that effort. An example from my life: I lose things constantly and I'm forgetful. I left an iPod on the bus years ago. I realized it as soon as the bus pulled away from the curb. Immediately I was angry and sad, of course. Rather than express that emotion to those strangers around me my mind went into unpacking and examining my emotions. Yes I had lost something that made me happy, yes replacing it would be expensive, yes it was entirely my own idiotic fault. With all that in mind, it still happened and I cannot change that. I was minus one iPod. Being angry and upset wouldn't help me. I can live without an iPod however. Certainly I have to...and it would be better if I didn't beat myself up any more about it. Rather, I should be just mad enough to resolve to work on my forgetfulness (being more mindful) and come up with a plan on how to work around that issue (don't set things down on bus seats). Within one block of walking to work I was okay with things. Annoyed, sure, but that was the extent of my negative feelings by that point. Life had happened. This forced rational examination actually makes me less mad, be more in control, and allows for personal growth. Personal growth, flourishing, is my idea of eudaimonia. Eudaimonia begets more of itself for me and allows me to help those around me find it. Sorry for the long rant, I really enjoy your videos. Time to go figure out who your dad is now. :)

[@johnmiller7453]

Yeah think again if you think you'll be able to "let go" of your emotions. I've found it best to just accept all your moods and emotions and then NEVER BEAT YOURSELF UP over how you deal with the slings and arrows of fortune. In time you'll be able to likely stabilize yourself but just accept it all as best you can and no better. You didn't ask to be created or to have your parents or environment or DNA so in the end you're not responsible for the trip you're on. So give yourself a break and the benefit of the doubt. And remember, if things get too ugly, the door is always open.

[@onbekendetelefoon2045]

You're good at this. Thank you, it was a pleasant watch. (I've read most stoic literature in German)

[@TheMjsanty]

Thank you for doing this episode Olly. Lately I have found myself becoming involved more and more with Stoicism and I found this episode to be both very helpful and enlightening. I vote that the next topic be "should prisoners get the vote."

[@chibinejiten]

listening to you make me think more and be calmer. Thank you :). Subscribed

[@PhilosophyTube]

Cool! Welcome to the channel!

[@SallyLePage]

Can you cover hedonism next please? Also and completely unrelated, I was discussing with my friends the topic of why is incest/incestuous marriage bad/illegal? Because it can't be purely because of reducing genetic illnesses in any offspring (the only argument my friends could give) because then marriage between people with any heritable illnesses should also be illegal. If you feel like doing a video on this then I would be interested. If not, no worries :P

[@kursna]

I've seen comments asking for a video on hedonism twice now so I figured I'd just let you know that he has done a video on hedonism

[@alexc2265]

People with serious and seriously heritable illnesses should mate in such a way that the illness would not occur

[@chadballsac]

Hedonism please. Seeing as one of the most widely read of contemporary philosophers, Peter Singer, is embracing a hedonistic Utilitarianism over his previously held Preference variation, it should be quite a hot topic. Great vid man. Also, who is your dad?

[@CliveWolfe]

Really nice video, that you for doing Stoicism it is the philosophy that got me into learning more about philosophy. I'm not sure that you can separate Stoic metaphysics from ethics, but I do thing you can learn a lot from Stoicism in how to act and live. As Aurelius said "You may break your heart, but men will still go on as before", it is great advise to carry you through those hard times of heartache. I wonder on your thoughts on the cross-over between Stoicism and the eastern philosophy's/religions? Daoism encourages us to be at one with the universe, just as the Stoics do. Also a lot of the Stoic ideas of protecting yourself, by imagining the worst that could happen, seems to be a way of decreasing attachment to other things/people, just as Buddhism teaches? I may be simplifying all three, but it is an interesting question I think. Also one vote for Hedonism please!

[@shawnmrcannon]

I noticed something about the end goal of a stoic that you referred to "Eudaimonia" from the sounds of it this could easily be related to "Nirvana" in the Buddhist traditions. The longer I'm studying philosophy the more and more I'm finding connections between ancient Western theories and ancient Eastern theories, despite the lack of a record saying they had any connection with each other. (For example compare Aristotle's theories on virtue of character to Buddhas middle way) I was curious about your thoughts on this.

[@rizosplayz]

Eudaimonia / Ευδαιμονία= Ευ+δαίμονας= Good Deamon (Angel like)

[@leirezalakain2836]

This philosphy reminds me of 17th century french moralists like La Rochefoucauld, or Madame de Lafayette (who wasnt 100% a moralist but was pretty into their philosophy) who viewed people's inner lives as a struggle between passion and reason, and thought everyone should lead their lives with virtue, withstanding obligation and suffering because, hey, that's life.

[@ivansavelyev2640]

Great video, good explanation

[@Hecatonicosachoron]

I'd like to see that video on hedonism since it would be a continuation of the older ones on the same topic.

[@onchounonami]

your face when you say "mainly thanks to the work of my dad" is so awesome haha

[@moongem4489]

Hey Olly, would you be willing to do a video about the Library of Babel?

[@luqmanturaki]

thank u for this brief summary i hv sociology exam and this really helped😊

[@Pfhorrest]

If you somehow can actually control your emotions like the Stoics advocate, then it's an obvious utilitarian good to do so, at least when it comes to unpleasant emotions, regardless of whether you believe the Stoic metaphysics. If you can somehow just choose not to feel bad when bad things happen to you, then that means there's less suffering going on, which is good.

[@crazy4meganfox]

love this video. i'm a big fan of stoicism. Great job!

[@peacy7184]

I'm making my way through meditations, so this is nice refresher

[@peacy7184]

It helped me understand the God part that they mention

[@ethanthompson3198]

over simplification: the good life=go with the flow? I really want to make sure I'm on my way to understanding this.

[@thegnat2955]

Nonreligious argument for stoicism: if the world is made a better place (by any definition of better) by actions that people can decide to do rationally, and a worse place by most other possible actions, it would follow that some emotions, which inherently cloud - or at least rush - judgement and decision, should be curbed so as to allow careful deliberation and thus the more effective taking of action.

[@erowind]

Please do Hedonism it's a topic I have yet to look into and would be most interested in a summery on the topic from you.

[@mymindinknots]

I think it is pretty safe to say that 'stoicism' is a logical conclusions from many of the platonic dialogs (namely charmidies and Phaedo Imo) particularly the idea of 'temperance. Further since most roman scholars knew Plato very well. So my question is, how much of 'stoicism' is original though and how much is just a good commentary on Plato ?

[@ugh_dad]

My only real knowledge of Stoicism comes from reading Marcus Aurelius' Meditations so there's a bit of a disclaimer. That said, I think aside from the metaphysics and handling loss, the mindfulness of rationalism, passions, and our part of an organized universe lends to really intriguing thoughts. Aurelius spends a lot of time discussing rehabilitative justice, the cause/effect relationships that join every individual, and essentially laying out an early framework for utilitarianism in a very human way. I actually think his philosophy works as a better form of util. because it strives for the same goal but avoiding the need to quantify pain/pleasure instead focusing on the ripples of consequence our actions cause. Lastly, the focus on finding and trying to perform your "duty" as a function of social and nearly cosmic harmony, and just trying to be aware of and mitigate the times we aren't is I think something we can all use more of, and personally has been the deciding factor in my choice to continue living on more than a few occasions.

[@tanyapapoutsakis5213]

Hi PT Olly Allow me to say this. You present the material with flair. Informative to the fullest. The only thing I found destructive was the type of music as background. This was desruptive and took away from your excellent presentation. If there is a way to change "that" tune, you'll get thumbs up and a prescription. Kind regards, Tanya

[@user-wf7sl7sw8k]

Stoicism practice for me mostly rely not on the metaphisics, but on a technics (visualisation of possible worlds, spotting choice moments, disputing automatic thoughts). Something like CBT.

[@regularemo1280]

I don't agree with this. And no not just because I'm an atheist. No, because I am a pessimist. If you ignore the bad things you allow them to thrive. I mean if you have a problem solve it! Don't just keep going. And if you can't possibly solve it take note! Try to find a way to keep that problem from happening again or effecting you again.

[@ViveLRoi]

I have seen Early Christianity described as "Judeo-Stoicism" and it's pretty accurate.

[@cccaij]

Don't undermine my ability for great joy (jk, unless you weren't jk when you said "a little bit of joy" xD), it is most rational to feel those feelings which are naturally bestowed upon you when your actions are in accord (especially if the feelings don't distract but rather enhance the moment for your experience or others). An example might be when I sit high up on a mountain and look at the beauty of the forest below, the peaks and valleys - smoothness and roughness in surround, the ionosphere on fire with energy above you yet the sun made to look peaceful with blue ambiance and floating fluffy sky pillow company I can't help but be filled with the most amazing awe and joy (and a number of deeper more indescribable feelings); at the very same time I am not drunken of mind or casting aside reality but being an experiential part of it as I should be. Admittedly my thoughts are closer to Aristotle (but not overly close, every philosophy - while being lived - is an individual philosophy, never truly adhering to orthodoxy) than to the hardcore Stoics. Just thought I would share that. Thanks for all the great vids!

[@VIKINGHUN]

Cool topic- I have "Meditations" by Marcus Aurelius on my shelf and have read it twice. He emphasizes stoicism throughout. It's helpful when you are worried about death or health issues. Thank you.....

[@sscoutistaken]

Oh wow, I thought it was a Wisecrack video, didn't realize you did 14 min videos back in the olden days.

[@PatrickStaight]

9:05 :You got my last name wrong but you you are not the first. It's pronounced like "state" but for some reason some forgotten ancestor of mine thought it should be spelled with a "gh". Anyway thank you so much for answering my question and keep up the good work!

[@PhilosophyTube]

+Patrick Staight Ah crap, sorry!

[@OmegaCraftable]

Could somebody clarify what he is talking about at around 8:10, the stuff to do with patriarchy and sexism. Can't really see the link there very clearly.

[@drkmwinters]

+OmegaCraftable The stereotype that women are emotional and men are rational combined with the elevation of the rational over the emotion implies men are superior to women.

[@OmegaCraftable]

+Kristi Winters Ah right, so stoicism combined with that stereotype leads to sexism. Cheers for clearing that up.

[@remfuck]

+Kristi Winters Is that wrong tho?

[@gendillon]

should prisoners get to vote! an old philosophy professor of mine used to say that the groups of people we need to watch out for most are the ones that have their rights taken away: prisoners and soldiers. I can't help but agree. rights are usually human rights to have a say over their fate, choices a person makes shouldn't take those away. here in America, criminals have no say in their fates, and we have a massively horrible prison industrial complex which dehumanizes, and an argue can be made for tortures, our inmates to a point where's there absolutely no rehabilitation. it's almost exclusively a "crime school" and the system makes it nearly impossible for them to make better lives once they're free. unless you go to prison, you can't understand the horrors they face and it's so easily tempting for us who've never gone to just say "they did bad, they deserve it". well, do they? do they deserve to have the rights that help give them control over their lives taken away permanently?

[@Mad_S]

I like to comment by oversharing my personal life. Not everyone likes it, but it feels therapeutic. Weirdly enough its the easiest way to comment on videos, and I heard that helps the creator so I try to remember to do it.

[@mauricestanley6859]

Not bad! Be happy w/what you've got!

[@nforte100]

Hedonism please! Because I don't know much about it but would like to.

[@thismanssky600]

my argument is one in practicality. if you allow emotions to effect you will not have control of your actions. you're being influenced by a moment that is temporary. as well emotion pure never provide solution just motivation.

[@allgoldenweek]

I wanna hear more about Hedonism!!

[@wanacoba]

First I'd like to see the subject of inmates voting discussed. As a law student believe that suffrage is a right, and the only right from which the inmate is deprives is that of personal freedom and free transit. Inmates should be allowed vote, work to provide for their families or for themselves once they leave jail, etc. Also for the Stoicism thing: I do agree on the emotion controlled attitude and I myself do try to be calm in my moments of trouble. Now, to fund my calmness in the metaphysics of a natural order tends to make me suspicious... all ideas of natural orders are not innocent... at all. I barely believe in an order so it tends to be difficult to fund my tranquility in "how the universe is".

[@nilabjadatta7018]

Stoicism to me. boils down to two things.. experience .. and acceptance.In any given situation, the solution is not predetermined, and relies heavily of the path you take to solve it. Thus being calm and observant is kind of like the best you can do to use the situation to your advantage ..rather than it dictating the outcome. On doing so, one might learn a great deal about the nature of the solution they presented and, again calmly, analyzing that to come to a perspective of themselves. Self awareness stems from calmness, experience and acceptance, but also believing that there might be several other explanations and paths rather than the one they took, in a sense, having the view that the world is a lot bigger than they would like it to be. I never really realised that I deeply held on to a lot of these principles before knowing about stoicism. Be calm fellow humans. Have faith. It will be okay.

[@WesLee108]

How about hedonism. I would like to hear your perspective on Epicurus.

[@Ricback2]

Thanks!

[@antwan1357]

As a stoic philosophy one difficulty is that when a stoic calls the police officer he does not believe the stoic for not looking upset .

[@diptendubt19]

Stoicism sounds a bit of Vedic Hinduism and Early Buddhism. Atman concept matches in pneuma.

[@finnianquail8881]

Did I tell you about the Proto-Indo-Europeans? Both Sanskrit and Greek share a same linguistic root, PIE (Proto-Indo-European), which where a group of people somewhere I think in the middle East. Anyway, there's a Gothic word "ahma" and also a belief of reincarnation from Germanic Paganism. Stay woke

[@ArturoStojanoff]

Some of these ancient Greek philosophers seem a little bit like extreme self help book writers, or maybe even cult leaders.

[@PhilosophyTube]

+Arturo Stojanoff some of them kinda were. Epicurus had a kind of cult. Sort of.

[@DragonForceWrath]

During the Hellenistic period schools of philosophy actually were pretty evangelical in their pr. It was, as I like to see it, the perfect philosophical environment because we have Epicurus down the street and if I'm a Stoic I need to be pretty sharp about not only my position but theirs, Seneca in his Letters actually praises Epicurean doctrines from time to time.

[@CocTheElf]

The catch is cult leaders and self help book writers aren't philosophers. Their basis isn't based on arguments, but unquestioned and assumed ideology.

[@revitellect3129]

Not to mention Pythagoras creating a religion around numbers. He had followers too (Pythagoreans). ;D

[@DocEonChannel]

It's not just that the metaphysics are like the Force. The curbing of passions is also very Jedi.

[@MikeDrumsIt]

Am I right that Stoic metaphysics is very similar to that of Daoism?

[@nicholaswatson999]

One of the biggest points you missed was to be okay with Murphy's Law anything that can go wrong will go wrong in other words don't let it Define how you feel you're the one that controls your focus your mind you define the world around it and how you feel about it hell even Anthony Robbins the motivational speaker has this in motivational teachings

[@kathrineaivalioti98]

i love your videos

[@ioratv]

Wait, if everything has been created rationally so must be pleasure, desire and fear. You can not live non-rationally in an universe that works rationally without any exceptions. Irrationality is relative; To person, To the situation.

[@brandonkellner2920]

In game theory, rationality is defined as something like your actions being in accordance with your goals. Your statement wouldn't really conflict with that definition, but it is rather willingly short sighted. Emotions are essentially a heuristic to guide you to a choice - if you can ignore the emotion you might find that your goals with emotion aren't what you want on a deeper level without emotion.

[@DragonForceWrath]

The universe is ordered rationally, that means the less desirable parts of life still have their place.

[@LordDarkhope]

make an annotation for stoa, the intonation is at the "a"

[@tomabuohari8305]

If one holds a worldview in which the world is godless and amoral and one acts in favor of their own rational self-interest and strives to overcome all outside restraints on their behavior, would it still be small s stoicism to practice self-control, keeping one's passions from overriding our reason for the sake of attaining one's goals?

[@noticias6111]

Seeing as how Stoicism inclinations for rationalism were brought up, I'd like to bring up this point, irregardless of * however* much Olly actually brings up the concept of pleasure, if the next video is about hedonism..I wouldn't equate happiness with following pleasurable cravings/desires, not the least b/c consistently doing that can exhaust someone..this being a channel on philosophy I wouldn't be to surprised if someone can make the connection btw to that, even if the 'pleasure' isn't always someone sensuous or self-indulgent like a drug, food or certain kind of amusement

[@unicorn_jazz]

Hedonism! But I'd love to see both :D

[@jenna2431]

Stoics in the face of tragedy: Don't fight reality. You will only lose 100 percent of the time. What you think about loss and misfortune is irrelevant. Go back to the old adage about the farmer whose son was hurt in a farming accident. How terrible, they said. The farmer was just like "It is what it is." And then the country went to war and his disabled son was exempt from going to fight. How lucky, they said. The farmer was just like it "It is what it is." The son's fiance eventually leaves him for an able-bodied man. "How tragic" they said. The farmer: "It is what it is." The man she did marry becomes a beat-down husk of a man by his shrewish wife. "How lucky" they said. The farmer: "It is what it is."

[@Tinymoezzy]

Could you do this video again, this time without the music? :)

[@faunuscancerous7102]

Life is eternal because energy can’t truly die so this means everything that happens is unimportant, as if we are playing parts in a grand stage of “God”. We are god expressing and expanding Itself through every painful or pleasurable experience, good or bad they are all just experiences. We get so entwined with our momentary nows that we become slaves of emotions and outcomes, through stopping and meditating on the self we can realize the reality of life

[@janoycresva6320]

How do you differentiate desire and pleasure?

[@suesswasserpirat7482]

Desire is wanting something (future) while pleasure is in the moment I would say.

[@nightweels]

desire is the motive pleasure is the goal

[@paytonmalcolm6234]

I see what the stoics were getting at when they say you needed to control, your passion, plesure, and desire but couldnt those emotions be put to good use? for instance alot of the really good pro athletes can use those emotions to push themselves and then achieve the "good life" by winning a world championship or something then wouldnt that be putting those emotions to good use instead of throwing them away? what do u think do u think people should throw away all passion, desire, and pleasure or do u think it would be better for people to keep those things and put them to good use?

[@Hecatonicosachoron]

"Arguments for stoicism that don't rely on stoic metaphysics" Firt off I am inclined to say that it is impossible to construct "practical guide for attaining a happy life", i.e. a moral philosophy without first agreeing on a few points about metaphysics - and so the attributes of a theory that can justify Stoicism can be seen, by definition, as a Stoic metaphysics. However, it is not necessary to agree on their specific views about the divine reason or the nature of spirit (pneuma) and the origin of the universe in fire or aether. One important stoic view on which much of their ethics can be based - i.e. that it is best to live 'rationally' - can be concluded from a relatively simple argument. First we must agree that it is possible to construct a valid and consistent logic of (conditional) imperatives. Secondly, we must say that we can obtain enough information about the world to construct meaningful statements about the relations between our actions and the stat of the world - in such a manner that will allow us to say that our hypothetical imperatives can be relied on. Given these tools, we can see that acting in a way that is consistent with the conclusions of our calculus of hypothetical imperatives would have a greater chance of bringing about a state of our environment that we find more comforting than to act in a way that is inconsistent with that aforementioned logic. Therefore, acting rationally - i.e. acting consistently with the logic that we have constructed - is more likely to lead us to experience less suffering. As for the numerous situations (possibly the majority of probable scenarios) that are completely beyond one's control, to wish that these situations were in control, or that the world to be different than it is, is simply a wast of time and misapplication of our faculties, benefiting no-one, but, conversely, making everyone a little bit less well-off. So for these unpleasant 'passions' that we can avoid or shield ourselves ith we can act in such a manner that they can be avoided - as for those 'passions' which are truly unavoidable there is no point in trying to shield ourselves from them and we may be less miserable if we could come to accept them. So, I think that there are arguments for Stoicism that do not include any reference to details of their metaphysics, BUT do include numerous premises that must be provided by some metaphysics. Oh, this took many more words than initially intended. I still hope that a few patient brave ones will still read it. I'd vote for hedonism for the next time as I've said before. You should actually also do a video on the Medieval ideas of natural ethics and natural law that you mention in 7:43

[@michaelkraus8407]

I'd like to see a Hedonism video be done.

[@cjfield123]

Great viedo

[@konkoism]

TIL I'm actually a stoic … without knowing that even existed.

[@nekoeko500]

This might not make sense for english soeakers but José Pablo Feinmann just died an YT throws this vid in my feed. That conveys some message.

[@nelord7000]

I want the prisoners on but please do the Hedonism one in the future.

[@rizosplayz]

The truth is that most of life existing questions have been answered B.C. STOISICM, EPICURISM, CYNICISM and so on hold most of the answers. But be advised, this is an uphill path...

[@guardingdark2860]

I disagree that the dichotomy between emotion and reason is inherently sexist. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I feel like people take that dichotomy and apply it to male and female, not the other way around. I see the distinction between them most often not in others but in myself. One of my favorite songs is "Cygnus X-1 Book II: Hemispheres" by Rush, which talks about the struggle of these two aspects in an individual, and a struggle that I feel very much in myself. I strive to be reasonable; I desire for myself that I be as rational as possible, and limit the control of my emotions as much as possible, but not eliminate it entirely; Hemispheres is about Balance, and to me the balance that feels the most correct is skewed towards reason; I know that sounds contradictory, but it's less of a "50-50" sort of balance, and more that my brain prefers reason, and domination by my emotions causes me discomfort, so my balance is skewed one way. Does my desire to be as reasonable as possible make me a sexist, just because some people associate the same dichotomy I observe in myself with differences between genders?

[@DSfan81]

I find the fact that there is supposed to be a dichotomy between rationality and emotion a really annoying one - and an unhealthy one. I just never knew that the Stoics were partly to blame for it. I don't know if this is due to a modern standpoint that takes into account a (I will admit, somewhat shallow) understanding of neurology and psychology, but I think that, as 'passions' are nigh unavoidable in humans, and the universe was supposedly designed maximally rationally, then don't passions also serve a rational purpose? I mean, I see value in thinking about why you are feeling a certain way while you are feeling it, but not in attempting to allay passion altogether. That just seems to me to be a shortcut towards either self-hatred or acting like an unkind snob towards fellow human beings (Sherlock, I'm looking at you). I also don't understand people who say that emotions are irrational in and of themselves. My belief tends to be that emotions are actually very rational, in the sense that they are, to some extent, broadly predictable, as in negative stimulus will elicit a negative response and vice versa (most of the time - humans are of course more complex than a vending machine).

[@milhousevanhoutan9235]

The universe is cold and unfeeling. It has no care if you live or die. Thus getting upset by events outside your control is the ultimate expression of pissing in the wind. So you should just go with it.