Stoicism's Major Flaw

I look at the current trend of Stoicism through the lens of Ryan Holiday's Daily Stoic, and more broadly through the Ancient Stoic philosophers, and ask, is it really a useful guide to life today?
00:00 - Introduction to Stoicism
02:40 - The Splitting of the World
09:48 - The Fleeting Life & The Tragedy of Rome
17:41 - The Gods of Fate
25:13 - The Miserably Wise Emperor King
28:53 - Hurting Nieztsche's Feelings
37:04 - Rage, Rage Against the Dying Light
43:41 - Why Stoicism Today?
Then & Now is FAN-FUNDED! Support me on Patreon and pledge as little as $1 per video: patreon.com/user?u=3517018
Or send me a one-off tip of any amount and help me make more videos:
www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
Buy on Amazon through this link to support the channel:
amzn.to/2ykJe6L
Follow me on:
Facebook: thethenandnow
Instagram: / thethenandnow
Twitter: / lewlewwaller
Subscribe to the podcast:
podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
open.spotify.com/show/1Khac2i...
Written & Presented By: Lewis Waller
Edited By: Paul Lapascu
Sources:
William Irvine, A Guide to The Good Life: The Ancient Are of Stoic Joy
John Sellers, Stoicism
Epictetus, Enchiridion
Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
Hegel, The Phenomenology of Spirit
Mary Beast, SPQR
Barry Strauss, Ten Caesars: Roman Emperors from Augustus to Constantine
James A. Mollison (2018): Nietzsche contra stoicism: naturalism and value, suffering and amorfati, Inquiry, DOI: 10.1080/0020174X.2019.1527547
Bernardo Ferro, Hegel’s Critique of Stoicism
www.scientificamerican.com/ar...
www.scientificamerican.com/ar...
psyche.co/ideas/dont-be-stoic...
iep.utm.edu/stoicism/
www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/fa...

[@gregbors8364]

I know there’s a problem with stoicism, but there’s nothing I can do about it, so I’ve come to accept it

[@lukefriede2986]

Based comment

[@uga3086]

Lmaooo

[@beangobernador]

true

[@Catthepunk]

Markie Mark would be glad

[@john2g1]

One solution to the problem is you can simply not be a stoic. Thereby doing something about the thing you cannot change.

[@JohnRocks7193]

This video is filled with analysis based on a misunderstood Strawman of Stoic theory and practice. Ryan Holiday is not a great resource for Stoic philosophy--he puts forth what I like to call "McStoicism" (i.e. a commercialized version of Stoicism for mass market appeal). Here's a breakdown of the inaccurate representations: 1. The "Dichotomy of Control" is a major mistranslation and oversimplification. The Stoics didn't use the word "control." The word more accurately translates to "attributable" or "reliant." This has a lot of implications for the practice and the theory. The Stoics didn't think that we had total "control" over our actions/judgements/etc. Rather, our actions are ultimately reliant on us. In other words, nobody except us can make us think our own thoughts, believe our own beliefs, etc. It wasn't supposed to be this central practice and theory. It was a simple recognition of the causal nature of the world. 2. The Stoics did not advocate for "indifference" toward externals. The Stoics advocated for care of externals, but not to the point that it risks compromising our moral character. If the only way we can get something we'd prefer to have is to be a bad person, the Stoics said that it's not worth it. In other words, the ends don't justify the means. That does mean that the Stoics would assert that we should forgo food or water or our health--that we should rather die--than give into vice. It's a hard line, but it's not contradictory. Eudaimonia is not an end, it is a byproduct of living in accordance with Nature (more on that to follow). 3. Stoicism is most certainly not a philosophy of despair. It can be used to address challenges effectively, but it also focuses heavily on fully embracing life and enjoying it while being a good person that applies reason and virtue. You touch on this fact that we are supposed to approach life with joy, but for some reason abandon it and choose to loop more around to the fatalistic misinterpretation of the philosophy without actually exploring what eudaimonia actually provides (i.e. a vibrancy and flourishing of life, not blissful tranquility and calm). 4. Worth noting that the Stoics didn't actually believe in "The 3 Fates." They constructed their own form of God that is a lot more complicated, and is in many ways more analogous to the laws of physics with a providential twist than it is to the Greek Pantheon. But overall, I was actually impressed with the way you described Nature from the Stoics' perspective. Reality is never wrong, that's just obvious. We have to adapt to it. But unlike Christianity with "original sin," the Stoics also said that Vice is caused by ignorance and is unintentional--so we're not to be castigated for acting viciously, because we don't know any better--we all think we're doing something justifiable or right. 5. We do, undoubtedly, shape the external world--and the external world shapes us. But that's not contrary to the Stoic position. The Stoics asserted that rather than responding to the world inappropriately (e.g. selfishly, overly emotionally, viciously), we should respond to the world through appropriate action or virtue. So, it is finding the *right* way to respond to the world in a proactive and vigorous manner, not just to cope with it passively. We should not, however, fool ourselves into thinking that just because we can build a dam, it means we can effectively control the flow of a river. It means that we will find the most appropriate way to build the dam, and accept that when something happens that breaks the dam or renders it useless, we can choose to focus on how to address that rather than sit in misery about our unfortunate lot. 6. You create a false foil to Irvine's quote: "We can either spend this moment wishing it could be different, or we can embrace this moment," does not mean that we resign ourselves to fate. It means that we embrace what happens *and respond appropriately.* We get sick? Don't just wallow in our illness and misery, go to the doctor, take medication. This is the classic "Lazy Argument" that Chrysippus rebutted. It was a critique then that was addressed through a very simple clarification: do not take parts of this philosophy and isolate them from the whole; otherwise, you will misunderstand it. "Amor Fati" (which was actually a term from Nieztsche, not the Stoics) must also be employed in combination with the Discipline of Action--one of three central disciplines of Stoic practice. 7. You make a categorical error when you say that some things do harm us. The Stoic said that we are *only* our moral character and our rational decisionmaking faculties. So, things like poverty, sickness, injury, addiction, etc. are not harming "us," they are harming our bodies, or our status, or our health. While we prefer to be healthy, have wealth, and have a solid reputation, we have to recognize that those things are not necessary *to be a good person,* which is what living according to Nature means. If you disagree with that, and believe that our physical health and other things the Stoics defined as "externals" are in fact just as important--if not more important--than being a good person, then that doesn't make Stoicism *wrong* as a moral philosophy. That just means you disagree with the Stoic moral philosophy and their model for a live well lived. 8. The slavery and suffrage movements being "not natural" is a categorical and semantic error (the same error that Nieztsche makes) in defining Nature differently than the Stoics did. It's what happens when we choose to mistranslate the Stoics and don't look at the actual words they used in proper context, and instead choose to use modern conflations of words and apply them to ancient philosophy. It looks contradictory to you because you're using the wrong words. 9. The Stoics didn't assert that passions (i.e. negative emotions) are external to us. They said that the passions arise as the result of our false judgements about what happens to or around us. It's not a dualism between the mind and the body. Emotions act as an important signal to a Stoic, indicating that we have faulty reasoning and judgement. Passions include distress, fear, anger, lust, envy, etc. It's never healthy or appropriate to act out of anger or fear, but it is appropriate to explore them. But there were also healthy, positive emotions that would also arise--as the result of sound judgement. The Stoics called these "eupatheia." They include joy, love, reverence, moral shame, and other productive emotions. The Stoics were not placidly emotionless. They were not "petrified to avoid suffering." They actively corrected false judgements and felt vibrant and warm instead. 10. You ask "what if.. we instead see ourselves connected to the world, as something in a positive relationship to it?" I mean, that's *exactly* what the Stoics thought we were. Like, exactly. Your entire "what if" section is actually Stoicism lol. But, "embracing" fate is active. It is not "accepting" fate passively. Fate is thrust upon us. Reality is never wrong. But the Stoics say that we can choose how we respond to it. We can act vigorously to shape our character in a manner that emergently shapes our fate in a more virtuous manner. We have long-term plans, but we recognize that they can and will shift over time as external events change our circumstances. That doesn't mean we don't plan and it doesn't mean we abandon planning. It means we stay adaptable. Great video editing, though.

[@DaleCooper-hc1se]

This is the best comment I've read so far. Somehow I expected better from Then & Now and that he would know better than to make a full - length video based on a mistaken interpretation of the Stoics. Or at least make a video differentiating what has been said about the Stoics vs. what the Stoics really said in order to get at a true understanding of their philosophy.

[@csanzc]

Thank you for your excellent explanation. I was surprised with the distortion of the Stoic concepts in the video.

[@JohnRocks7193]

​@@DaleCooper-hc1se I'm not really familiar with this channel, but this is about the level of detail I've come to expect from KZbinrs not specifically dedicated to Stoicism. I don't blame him for his just beneath the surface-level coverage, but I do hope he'll address this comment.

[@PilgrimVisions]

Just wanted to note my appreciation for this comment. I know a good bit more about the Church Fathers and Platonic schools than I do the Stoics, but it's clear that semantic drift and sheer cultural distance have led to many distorted modern perceptions of ancient thought, even among such genuine and thoughtful readers as I trust Mr. Waller to be. "Nature" is one of those concepts.

[@Barefoot-Jaycee]

This is by far the best comment and response to this video.

[@aymiraydinli5655]

What i got from stoicism was never to discard the emotions, be in controlof your emotions and understand where they are coming from rather than let it control you and your actions. This is a great video shining light on the cracks of the philophy if you approach it too literally.

[@hoi-polloi1863]

Another big point about stoicism is that it's up to you to decide how much to allow the actions of others to hurt you. Someone insults you? Well... how much do I care about his point of view?

[@CalculyticCuber]

I think any philosophy or ideology really breaks down if you look at them under a microscope. That's not to say you shouldn't follow them, but you probably should avoid dipping too seriously or deeply into any of them. Taoism is another similar philosophy that I think has the ability to make you too passive if you take it too literally, but at least built into Taoism is the assertion that you AREN'T following Taoism if you're trying to follow it consciously.

[@hoi-polloi1863]

@@CalculyticCuber Agreeing with you here, no philosophy can pre-visage every situation in the human experience. A philosophy -- especially a big-brand one -- should be like the pirate's code... "guidelines". ;D Honestly, I'm reminded of the transition between Mosaic law and New Testament approach, tbh.

[@furyberserk]

@@CalculyticCuber Of course. People use the same words to represent different things all the time. Words are meant to convey meaning, not represent absolute understanding. But people find some words in that way. Example, can you define fascism without looking it up? And after looking it up, can you explain it? Do you think there will be a consensus from anyone beyond the definition?

[@jemperdiller]

Yes. The author has no idea about the topic

[@fou-luthedragonemperor8648]

I love your essay style and modern stoicism sure has some criticism to take, but if stoicism is about passive acceptance of fate, Epictetus would've remained a slave his entire life and would've never teached stoicism

[@MrZauberelefant]

I assume stoics are quick to attribute their good fortune not to their efforts, but fate. Much like modern elites attribute their successes to their mindset or what have you, disregarding the contributions of others. People are often falling prey to wishful thinking about their life story.

[@gn.punpun]

This is exactly what I'm thinking! His understanding of stoicism is surface level and rudimentary.

[@spencerricketts8025]

Brilliant point! Very glad i'm taking a philosophy class in college rn

[@9000ck]

Depends on what you see as fate. It was possible to become a freed slave and was therefore not fated. Thing is; you cannot know what your fate is. The links of causality are too complex to be able to predict with any certainty for more than a short period of time.

[@KarlSnarks]

Wasn't Epictetus granted freedom by his master?

[@BigHenFor]

Emotions cannot simply be banished. They are signals from the self as a response to the environment, and should be read as such, but they are signals, not instructions. They have to be fed through the rest of the mind to be fully understood. And then decided upon. They should not be masters, nor servants but companions. They are us, and we should work through them, because we are co-creators of our reality.

[@spencerricketts8025]

I couldn't have said it better myself

[@LowestofheDead]

This was really beautifully written, thank you

[@yggdrasil2]

I don't think they can be banished, but they can be controlled and controlled to influence your life in a positive way.

[@bell5082]

They can never be banished, and no Stoic would want to not have any at all. Stoicism is about domesticating emotions, not elimination.

[@Psris123]

Brilliant signals NOT instructions. Ill write that down for my group

[@Zino95]

This is a pretty long post, so keep scrolling if you’re looking for something shorter. So, I would argue that the stoics did not separate themselves from Nature. On the contrary, both Seneca and Marcus Aurelius emphasized that man is inseparable from it. It's not a coincidence that some of the later stoics came to influence philosophers such as Spinoza and Montaigne. One was a pantheist, the other was a humanist, meaning both criticized the dominant view of man as superior and separate from Nature. But turning back to the stoics, let me give you an example of what I meant earlier: the aim of Seneca's reflection on death was to make us aware of the fact that we are, just like everything around us, subject to change. Suffering comes from attachment to temporary things or from the desire of wanting things to stay just the same. In short, we suffer precisely when we forget that we are not special, but in fact subject to the same laws that govern the entire universe (Nature): birth, gradual decay and then death, rinse and repeat for the rest of eternity. In a sense, death is what unites us with the rest of the universe. The distinction between “internals” and “externals” isn’t one between humans and Nature, but between our internal state of being, plus our actions derived from it, and everything else. The stoics believed that all of Nature was imbued with Reason, and thus had a cause and a purpose. The problem is that we humans can’t always understand or anticipate this purpose, which both precedes and is larger than us. Therefore, by calling things “external”, we acknowledge that our understanding is limited, but recognize that Reason exists and when something happens, it was necessary for it to happen; not in a cliché way (as in “in the end it all turned out for the better” or “what doesn’t kill me makes me stronger”; most often suffering is simply horrible and seemingly futile), but because the laws that govern the Universe require it to happen. This is a pretty standard deterministic world view. Although we can’t know for sure if we’ll be successful in trying to influence the world, according to the stoics, we should, still try to do it. Why? Because virtue requires action and acting out in the pursuit of virtue is moral and meaningful in itself, irrespective of the outcome. As long as we’ve given it our best shot and stuck to our principles, we’ve done our job. The rest is out of our reach. The "internals" mainly refer to the things we seemingly have direct access to. Perhaps Marcus Aurelius states it most clearly when he wrote about the "soul", which more or less stands for what we moderns would call “psyche”. Since we have direct access to our psyche, as opposed to the consequences of our actions, we are also able to shape it. How? By trying to understand it through introspection. The stoics’ great interest for the exploration of the self is what makes them feel surprisingly modern. I believe seeing the separation in these terms rather than those you presented makes it less “fuzzy”. Thanks for reading my comment. I had fun writing it, so I hope it was also useful.

[@simoneruellan4258]

Useful for me. What you are describing sounds very similar to the Buddhist view.

[@lawrence6622]

Right, thanks. Indifference isn't the goal of stoicism, it's the jumping off point. A common misconception, it seems. I didn't learn anything from this critique of stoic philosophy.

[@bolognivm]

@@simoneruellan4258 great minds think alike.

[@KarlSnarks]

@@simoneruellan4258 You wouldn't be wrong, as both philosophies are often compared to eachother

[@shinmentakezo4131]

The guy who wrote the video clearly did mo read any stoic book. He’s just disagreeing for views. Stoicism is much more than even what ryan teaches. It’s a philosophy and a way of life that is deeply profound and spiritual.

[@Ana_Fern]

I've returned many times through life to stoicism, usually not by my own wish but by the unlucky turn of events that would only leave me an option to suck it up and stand tall. I've even consumed tons of stoic literature including Ryan's books. What I noticed about his adaptation of stoicism to modern day- it is basically spiced with individualism and capitalism, where philosophy of Markus Aurelius or Epictetus would say that you need to fight and oppose injustice/problem, Ryan often concludes that you should instead look inward and try to make the best out of what you've got. He basically abandons courage as a stoic value of action, he views courage only as a "way of thinking", and any action is ought to be taken by means available in capitalist system. Also he is elitist af, but this is a side issue.

[@CrankyNebelung]

I would agree, if you notice, he starts his videos by saying “my name is Ryan holiday I am an author of New York Times, best selling books, I’ve talk to top, ranking military officials, and senators.” My dude, I can’t relate to you lol.

[@NilsMontanEsq]

Ryan Holiday literally has a book entitled "Courage Is Calling: Fortune Favors the Brave." I think you misunderstood the message.

[@Ana_Fern]

​@@NilsMontanEsq I read it, I guess the problem is that I read it in the context of today's social issues.

[@syncsummit]

@@CrankyNebelung you know what, it's not that I cannot relate to him, it's just that he's a freaking pompous dork and a shill for his books and his little coins and trinkets. Yeech.

[@awkwardpenguinftw]

I love your channel, Ana! ❤️ 💙 💜

[@uuu098]

I think of stoicism as a precursor to modern day CBT- focus on what you can control, such as your management of your thoughts and feelings. Stoicism doesn't say lie down like a helpless dog and resign to injustice. It says spend your time and energy on things you can actually do something about, which is quite a bit more that want most people believe.

[@draw4everyone]

Pop stoicism is best defined as the philosophy of cope.

[@SpoopySquid]

I actually laughed out loud 😂

[@DarthTanaris]

I've read all of the Stoics and despise the modern stoic trend, or as most people call it, bro-icism. There is a lot of wisdom that is good from the Stoics, but not everything they said should be applied to modern times. Even though I don't fully agree with the Stoics, I appreciate their contributions. Ryan Holiday is just selling a brand, can't stand the guy. Looking at his past history makes it pretty clear that he is an opportunist and probably a grifter.

[@suicidalbomber8048]

Pop stoicism is basically permanent anesthesia that Byung-Chul Han talks about.

[@draw4everyone]

@@suicidalbomber8048 it's ahistorical, that's for sure. It fits into the liberal "human nature" ideology in my opinion - "look! Even the ancient ROMANS dealt with this stuff! Has anything really changed? *wink* *wink* buy my book to find out!"

[@jimmuncy5636]

@@DarthTanaris I disagree: Ryan is not a faker; he really believes that stuff, because it may have helped him many times in his life. It may be, like religion, a false path, but it can still seem worth it, because it gets you through many a jam; in short, it may be a crutch, but until something better comes along, you benefit from that crutch. It's very difficult to find the one true way to exist. (I know that at 74 I'm still looking.)

[@ramathaine]

Watched the whole thing and I cannot wait to see the comments on this. As someone who's gone down the stoicism rabbit hole, I can see the points being raised. It's less a critique of stoicism and more of a "give it a little more thought" type discussion, raising your own critiques as well at the critiques of people like Nietzche. I'll still continue to adapt stoic philosophy as I come across it, but now I'll give it a bit more of the context discussed here, and think for myself whether I should apply it for not for my own personal life! Thank you for the video!

[@DarthTanaris]

He did a good job of bringing up valid criticisms but didn't give an entirely clear picture. Stoics weren't hard determinists, they were compatibalists. They also weren't completely closed off from society, on the contrary, they believed we have a duty to the whole, the world cosmopolis.

[@JohnRocks7193]

@@DarthTanaris The Stoics actually were hard determinists. The Dichotomy of Control is a mistranslation of the Koine Greek "eph'hemin" which is better translated to "attributable to you" or "reliant on you" rather than "in your control."

[@DarthTanaris]

@@JohnRocks7193 The Stoics were determinists insofar as they maintained that every state or event is necessitated by prior causes; but, at the same time, they were compatibilists since they were willing to defend the thesis that prior necessitation does not make impossible that we deserve praise or blame for the actions we perform. So, against the so-called “hard determinists”, the Stoics are intent on proving that, despite determinism, the humans are genuinely responsible for their actions.

[@JohnRocks7193]

​@@DarthTanaris Yes, but responsibility does not necessitate or imply free will. We are responsible for our action or inaction because our actions and inactions can only be done, or not done, by us and us alone. We are held responsible because we are the proximate cause of our unimpeded actions through our assent. In a free-will context, vice would be something we address harshly, but the Stoics do not do that. They recognize that vice is ignorance, and ignorance is due to a set of conditions, not the active choice of an individual.

[@ericquiabazza2608]

Telling what stoic "is" and "isn't" such pretentiousnes We can only guess what people thpught, heck this coment adress already this video deliberately omits parts to make it message. Falacies all, for there is not underestanding, just ignorance faking underestanding. And as a hipocritical that i am would suggest to see to Realism, yet not the same bubbler ignorance of "reject feeling", as the thought is deeper, so learn Nicha. Stoicism, realism,nhilism, all family, diferent age.

[@ernststravoblofeld]

As a self proclaimed Stoic, I would dearly love it if Ryan Holiday would find another hobby. As far as the ambiguity goes, I can live with that. Stoicism, with some common sense modification to fit what we know today, is basically a solid way to sort out a very chaotic world. I think some of the criticism of stoicism is simple pedantry, making issues of things that aren't actually a thing. That idea that Stoics cut themselves off from the world, for example, is countered by the lives of every known Stoic, many of whom were public servants and leaders in their societies.

[@tachidnd680]

Yeah, I think the point of the stoic philosophy is being missed hardly. Describing stoicism as the philosophy of despair sounds to me like not understanding nothing about it.

[@kuseel7493]

Agreed

[@joleaneshmoleane8358]

It seems to be the philosophy of the rich and those who are good w the status quo.

[@tachidnd680]

@@joleaneshmoleane8358 It makes me kinda sad that stoicism is perceived like that. The silicon valley stoicism if a very twisted version of what the ancient philosophy was

[@ernststravoblofeld]

@Mrs Katie Thompson The most complete explanation of Stoic philosophy comes from a teacher named Epictetus who was a slave. The next big chunk of knowledge of stoicism comes from an emperor. There's no class connection. It was all through society. Don't be fooled by the Stoic Bros, who sell fake philosophy to insurance salesmen.

[@Heyokasireniei468sxso]

Thank you it's not about repressing our emotions but mastering them , using them correctly and fully , building a relationship with them .

[@DerekSpeareDSD]

Stoicism: accept all the things you cannot control until such time as you can control them, and then endeavor to change them if more good is created from your actions. Beyond that the message gets lost.

[@kyleb5927]

A lot of modern therapy is on this concept. It's crazy. When I first got into therapy I was made fun of "ohhh your feelings, etc etc." Then when I went through therapy I was shocked at how many times I was called out on my bullshit.

[@leplus1]

YES! Thank you! Many people even in ancient times, confused the things you cannot control, as thing you ought to not change like Cato the conservative. It is really similar to what you pointed out but in the current times.

[@MrJenpaul123]

Intrusive thoughts are a pain in the ass.

[@kaido5126]

@@MrJenpaul123 I agree

[@kaido5126]

@@MrJenpaul123 But if you let it consume you then it will be much worse

[@ali_p_q7920]

I see this rebith of Stoicism in popular media as an ideological push, a way to make us accept the barbaric aspects of today's capitalism.

[@damiancampbell7534]

That's the vibes I get. Or like how Jordan Peterson essentially runs his mouth about how we shouldn't make society a better place. Same energy. Just accept your lot in life, get treated like dirt and appreciate it for the "privilege" that it somehow is.

[@13hehe]

it one thousand percent is. i hope your comment gets to the top..

[@briantuk3000]

Is capitalism and today's living material conditions not enough for you?

[@bbmul1572]

I’m both a big proponent of Stoicism and a big detractor of capitalism, and I see where you’re coming from. For me, Stoicism stresses a lot of social responsibility and a need to strive for a better, more just society as part of humanity’s nature as a social species. I’m not a fan of Ryan Holliday though, and I imagine that he and I have very different conceptions of what the philosophy entails.

[@brunosarramide572]

​@@briantuk3000 no, a system that praises productiveness over all kind of human well being it's not enough for anyone. In fact, it probably will doom humanity if it hasn't already done it.

[@ScamallDorcha]

I'm a stoic. I pretty much agree with all of this. If we need to adapt these philosophies to our modern environment, we should. Personally, I've always seen the goal to learn to co-live with my emotions, rathern than be dominated by them, or to try to dominate them a-la vulcan. I think everybody would agree that we make things worse for others and ourselves when we let ourselves be controlled by our emotions.

[@RedRabbitEntertainment]

Emotional reasoning isn't always bad, for example, a man choosing to take care of his family is doing so for emotional reasons, there's no actual logical reason to do so, it's love and duty.

[@BigHenFor]

Your emotions are signals that you are responding more than superficially to your environment. They aren't instructions. They are information from your self, qualitative information, and can be used to assess qualitatively your experiences. As information, they have to be assessed and analysed for their usefulness, become knowledge.

[@MrMuertoloco]

​@@BigHenFor this sounds like how I view emotions, just information to consider. It took me awhile to find the balance, but things are alot easier now.

[@MrLuigiFercotti]

With regard to emotions I take a good for baseball, bad for baseball view. 😁

[@nancychandler3673]

Yes 🎉Feel your feelings then you are able to progress without letting feelings control you.

[@trentonkrzyzowski6778]

I agree that stoic philosophy isn't perfect, but some of it's more generic insights have helped me uproot many problems in my life. It's provided me the resolve and courage to stomp out injustice and generally live a more peaceful and joyful life despite the disappoinment of our world. From what I've studied on the subject, stoicism is better understood as the detachment from outcomes rather than a passive indifference and apathy. This means you can, and often times should, be concerned about affecting the external world and changing it for the better, but you should work on not allowing disappointing outcomes to phase you. For example, if there is a political injustice that needs to be stomped out, many Stoics would argue to fight against it, but one shouldn't be surprised, or even saddened, by the disappoinment of failure. Thus, what the Stoics aimed to articulate with the dichotomy of control is more about the reaction one has to disappointment rather than avoiding having any affect on the external world altogether. They aimed to teach us to have the courage to fight against disappointment and injustice, but have the resolve to control our reactions if things don't go according to the most positive outcome. It's more about controlling one's reaction to disappointment, not avoiding disappointment altogether. This is my interpretation of "Amor Fati". We should learn to love and accept the truth of who we are and our nature, our fates, rather than resist it and pretend it's something it's not. I'm pretty sure Ryan Holiday acknowledges something similar to this, the self-help guru disguised as a psuedo-philosopher he is. Also, it's a common misunderstanding to say stoics are anti-emotions. Many stoics recognized emotions are out of our control, you should accept your emotions for what they are and not resist or repress them because that will only make their affects worse. By accepting your emotions for what they are, accepting them and facing them head on, you can more easily let them go. If an emotion comes to you, the best way to control it is to accept it for what is and patiently allow it to exit your system by accepting it without making decisions based on it. By drawing this line and developing this self-awareness, one can more easily distinguish the difference between their rational and emotional brain, which will allow them to make better decisions based on logic and reason rather than the lesser intelligence of emotions. Imo, this isn't to say emotions have no value, but rather they aren't what we should guide our life decisions based on. The stoics might disagree, but I'm not an expert on the subject. I can see why people would consider this as anti-emotion, given the goal of this is to transcend emotions in a sense. However, to me it's more about getting ones priorities straight and realizing our emotions often get in the way of us living a virtuous life and thwart the quality of our decision making and lifestyle principles. That if we acted on our emotions, as Seneca noted, we would live lives of folly and impiousness.

[@recklssabndon]

The problem I see is a conflation of “control” and “influence”. Understanding what we can mostly control versus what we can merely influence would be a good starting point. Then understanding external preferences and agendas.

[@RobertN734]

Epictitus' work where he lays out that dichotomy is literally "the handbook", which is just short-hand lessons on how to behave in day-to-day life. That particular work is not designed to cover all the nuances, and presenting it that way is shamefully misleading.

[@recklssabndon]

@@RobertN734 I actually agree with you - I meant my comment both as a critique of the peddlers of surface level stoicism and the representation of stoicism in this way by those arguing against it (which probably unwittingly borders on creating a straw man)

[@RobertN734]

@@recklssabndon I agree, and I think this video is damn near a straw-man with how little it engages with stoic material. It's a surface reading: it raises questions but doesn't look to see if stoic texts have responses, then caps everything with appeals to emotion.

[@recklssabndon]

@@RobertN734 it’s disappointing because there are valid critiques to be made about the nuances of faulty conclusions that stoicism’s premises would likely favor. Or you could look at these critiques as an opportunity to further refine the arguments/premises of stoicism to account for discrepancies. The main thing that comes to my mind is the paradox of being - an observation that doesn’t really get refined in other schools of thought until the late 19th century. Although it is also developed in strange and contradictory directions during the 20th century - but I would characterize these as separate, perhaps “the paradox of self-awareness of being” would be a better way to distinguish these from the original. Anyway, I digress. Incorporating this into the framework of stoicism would be interesting but also may require borrowing some premises from other schools that may or may not contradict some stoic tenets.

[@RobertN734]

@@recklssabndon For sure, and I think philosophies are loose associations, not dogmatic religions. Obviously no modern person is going to practice stoicism the same way as Epictitus. Seneca is so much a "practical stoic" that he barely resembles any others. The fact that there are discrepancies is fine, the authors are different people over hundreds of years. Ideally, you should read the stoic texts, make your own determinations, and evolve them the best way you can. In fact, you should do this with every school of thought. That's all it means to be a philosopher. My specialism of study in university was metaphyics of free will. My take on this notion of self-awareness is to discard the notion of self. Your mind is a collection of competing subroutines caused by the physical structure of your brain/body. Your waking thoughts are either a coalition of subroutines or one particularly loud voice, whose agency can be wrestled away by others. You're not in control, your awareness is a fleeting illusion, "you" are just along for the ride. My ideas are different than the classical stoics, reached through different sciences and philosophies. However, the end result fits neatly with how stoics handle ethics and purpose, therefore I identify with them on those points.

[@jonnyblamey]

How did you get from “love fate” to “resign from the world”? How did you get from only care about what you can control, to give up controlling anything?

[@Nightmare704RY]

It's simple really, in ancient times they where more religious so they believed in the "plan of the gods". Such believe is not widespread anymore, particularly in the minds of many "modern stoics" so they don't have that consolation so to speak.

[@user-lq4dg7qj9i]

I have the same question for the KZbinr. This is a misinterpretation of stoicism's main ideas.

[@Lobos222]

@@user-lq4dg7qj9i If you think everything is "fate". Then you sort of have resigned from impact on cause and effect. my2cent.

[@argentaegis]

@@Nightmare704RY I have trouble distinguishing between "plan of the gods" and "experts say" in domains where people lack the underlying technical knowledge to challenge experts.

[@Spaghetter813]

​@@argentaegisthe thing is, experts can be asked to explain their reasoning and it is possible to gather at least some technical knowledge as a layman. We also know that experts have passed certain tests to prove their expertise to other experts (aka those who can mkst accurately judge them). None of this is true for gods.

[@csfischer007]

“Epictetus might tell me, for example, that I have no control over how many people will like this video.” Um, no, he wouldn’t say that. He would tell you exactly what you deduced, that you having some control over it, or at least some influence.

[@magusburro9094]

I agree that as a culture we need to take things like the modern Stoicism revival with more thought than what is given to us by people like Ryan Holiday. I got introduced to Stoicism through my practice of Buddhism and saw alot of similarities in terms of maintaining inner calm. I've benefited from reading and applying the Stoic worldview such as the idea of fate and learning to detach from emotional reactions; I've made new friendships, found a satisfying job (for the time being), and overall feel good about where I'm heading in life, but with that being said, I still contemplate death as the Stoics advise and part of that has to do with my personal experience of grieving for people I've lost and I feel it would be dishonest to not acknowledge that while we can make plans for the future, death could just as easily cut our fragile thread. Perhaps I'm too grim, but it doesn't come from a place of apathy nor depression. We also have to remember that the Stoic literature that has come down to us is paltry. Around or less than 1% and so any nuances to the Stoic philosophy have been lost to time. Chrysippus wrote a bunch of works on Stoic logic and we have none of them and so with the modern revival it uses the word Stoic to camouflage radical individualism which I don't think the Stoics would approve of Ryan Holiday's superficial ponderings of their philosophy. I think that calling Stoicism a philosophy of despair is too judgmental but that could be personal opinion, however, I do want to bring up that Marcus Aurelius and Seneca both wrote about their interests in other philosophical schools such as Epicureanism which advocated pursuing mental pleasures that mitigated pain and suffering and the view that the universe is unpredictable and that we are just a construction of atoms (as the Ancient Greeks defined atoms) instead of a rational separate soul. We have to think that these guys were trying to live and shouldn't judge how they viewed everyday affairs through their writings which were often to friends or to themselves. I think I sound critical of the video, but I agree with the overall point that this revival of Stoicism is a good gateway to delving deeper into philosophy. I tend to follow Plato and Socrates and love the thoughts of Spinoza and Schopenhauer along with the Stoics. I'm not saying we shouldn't strive to fight against our "fate" or learn to empathize better or repress our natural emotional reactions, I sometimes disagree with what the Stoics say when it comes to things that I think are personally meaningful such as creativity and music which Seneca once advised we should be indifferent too and I am not willing to do that. However, their view on death is something that I think should be better explored in the context of grieving and dying. We can come out of grief with more understanding and appreciation for life and its value as well as our eventual end. Great video, thank you for making it! Sorry for rambling.

[@esalinasml]

My introduction to philosophical work was religion (Catholicism) and Aristotle and got sucked into the rabbit hole of philosophy and critical thinking for well over 15 years reading as much as I could and question everything. I then stumbled into stoicism and saw how my line of thinking lined up with much of its teaching. I short stoicism is practical philosophy and it helped me re organize my life. Every other philosophy to me felt like it was digging me into a deeper hole of questioning. I’m not a stoic in the since that I follow stoicism to a tee but stoicism is the only philosophy that gave me the tools to build a life upon. I love the intellectual dissection of philosophy but now seemed to have a foundation to sit for me. The stoics had tool for me ready to use now. And for that I admire the stoics.

[@bakangndaba]

I agree with the thought of further expanding reason on things that hold significant meaning in our lives. But we must remember, just like the ancient stoics had no clue on how to go about this life thing, they did their best on trying to live their lives to the fullest just as we are trying to do.

[@alekdaniels]

This, for me, is not a major issue. The stoic philosophy has given me a map on how to navigate difficult situations with a clear head. I am now more logical in my approach to situations where I could have let my emotions drive otherwise. It is a difficult philosophy to live by but it's an efficient one. Stoicism is less a philosophy and more a tool to make decisions. It's not an entirely perfect philosophy because no philosophy is. But it allows me to let go of things I can't control and not blame myself for them.

[@karigrandii]

It also is just a part of the mindfullness trend that is making people in the post modern capitalist world passive and obidient to the status quo. ”Don’t get mad, don’t rebel, nothing matters but economic growth so now breath to maximize our profits”

[@xivan8rx554]

@@karigrandii it actually says to do what is right even when everyone around isn't, Meditation is full of this

[@richmrstonestone]

​@@karigrandii😂 😂😂 In a world full of hysterical social justice idiots give me an honorable stoic culture please.

[@tancreddehauteville764]

You don't need to be a stoic to think and act logically. And in many cases, emotional drive is a perfectly logical thing.

[@alekdaniels]

@@tancreddehauteville764 Yes, you don't need to be a stoic to act logically but it helps a lot. Human emotions are a powerful, primal force. If you can tame them with stoicism, it's a lot easier to let logic settle. Also, I vehemently oppose with your statement that emotional drive is a perfectly logical thing in many cases. Definitely not. Probably in some rare scenarios, yes, but not in many. This is the age-old struggle between Dionysian and Apollonian philosophies. People who are driven by their emotions are most definitely not logical in most cases. You let anger drive you, you'd end up miserable in jail. You let pity drive you, you'd be scammed off of your money. You let sadness drive you, you'd be d3ad by your own hands. I'm not sure if I'd call these logical.

[@DarthTanaris]

"Amor fati" and "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" are actually quotes from Nietzsche, ironically.

[@projekt84]

Yeah this whole video is garbage takes. What a waste of time.

[@BigHenFor]

Nietzsche borrowed it from the Stoics, even though he despised their passivity. As I understand the concept, his ubermensch was no stoic, but a sceptic, questioning reality, and making his own mind up, for good or ill.

[@jemperdiller]

​@@BigHenFor from who exactly he borrowed it? Source?

[@michaelh13]

@@jemperdiller Epictetus, Enchiridion chapter VIII : "Do not seek for things to happen the way you want them to; rather, wish that what happens happen the way it happens: then you will be happy" Nietzche Ecce Homo Section 10: "My formula for greatness in a human being is amor fati: that one wants nothing to be different, not forward, not backward, not in all eternity. Not merely bear what is necessary, still less conceal it-all idealism is mendacity in the face of what is necessary-but love it." The homage seems quite evident, and we know that Nietzche spent a lot of time as a student reading greek philosophers, as seen in his paper "Zur Geschichte der Theognideischen Spruchsammlung" which he published in 1867 when he was 23

[@apartmentdfilms]

William B Irvine is a better modern Stoic philosopher with a way more nuanced understanding of Stoic principles than Ryan Holiday. Instead of a dichotomy, he writes about a trichotomy of control, with most things falling into the ambiguous category in the middle. Great video also!

[@She_Wonders]

I love his book!

[@trentonkrzyzowski6778]

Yeah, Holiday dropped out of college and started studying under Robert Greene. In other words he learned how to become a self-help writer, not a philosopher at least by today's standards. Haha. Not to say that having a formal education makes anyone superior, but at this point being a real philosopher requires at least some external education through a university or college of some kind. I think Ryan Holiday is a good writer and thinker, but I don't think he should be taken seriously as a philosopher; instead as a self-help guru. I guess he could be a real Philosopher without formal education, but his work often comes across like capitalistic and practical self-improvement insights rather than rigorous and critical philosophy.

[@jamesdaltrey4987]

Stoicism for people who don't like Stoicism: Irvine invented the term Dichotomy of Control..

[@sarahrobertson634]

It's all about balance.

[@ridicule1313]

I agree, I think that Ryan Holiday is not a good basis for critique. He’s a popularizer at best, and gets things wrong often. There’s plenty of more consistent modern Stoics out there who are very reliable when it comes to the content of the original texts. Pigliucci, John Sellars, Christopher Gill, and others

[@mitrahispana4119]

You’re missing how Stoics recognized doing things “conditionally”. I do my best at a task. Maybe I fail. Maybe I succeed. It’s not completely up to me, but social duty, which we share with all rational beings, only requires I do my best. If I still fail, there is no reason to be upset, because I did my duty, which is all any human being can ever really do anyway. You also miss their concept of “preferred indifferents”. Physical health is a preferred indifferent, which is ideal to have (obviously) but never completely up to you. You can exercise, eat healthy, and abstain from drugs…but that won’t protect you from ever getting sick or hurt. A Stoic accepts that our control is always limited, even illusory. Only our will “hegemonikon” is under our complete control, but it is always grappling with impressions “phantasia”. It’s these bad judgments about impressions that lead us to emotional/psychological turmoil. Ryan Holiday is no philosophical innovator, but I respect that he’s bringing new attention to an old and valuable philosophy like Stoicism. Its principles and ideals might not be for everyone, and that’s fine, but at least they are being discussed, considered, and lived out.

[@Alex_Khan]

Agreed

[@maximusneal2642]

Stoicism is used as a defense mechanism or an escape to your hardship, even if we show you flaws of the worldview, some might still have a grip on it still, only Jesus can save and give hope of salvation and true contentment and wisdom, only Jesus is the truth, every other way leads to flaws, and we can always discuss and have questions for me if you want, please don't send a whole essay just give mature questions for me to answer please

[@sipzie7395]

@@maximusneal2642it’s not an escape if you genuinely cultivate all those stoic traditions. You’re implying that stoics faked their willpower and strengths by saying it’s an “escape”. Thats not a valid argument or statement. I understand your agenda of pushing Jesus onto people, and personally I believe that’s wonderful. However you should be careful with the way you word things as it sounds somewhat ignorant to the ideals of stoicism. One could be stoic and believe in Jesus, even so, I have a belief that Jesus would love true stoics for they hold the will to benefit not just themselves through hardships but through the world. Stoics don’t only care about self improvement or “control” they care about the benefit of the world too. What injures the hive, injures the bee.

[@maximusneal2642]

@sipzie7395 It's not really of an argument it speaks for itself. It's a coping mechanism for life situations. Yes, I know it's a tradition etc etc but the motivation for it is the point. We, as human beings, are selfish people. We use certain stuff to fit what we want out of it and cope through what we want to get out of life, and stoicism is a way of getting through it. Again, motives are the point 2. The guy in the video explained the quote that we can only control the internal and not external, I ofc respect you, and in some aspects, some of the disciplines said are of the bible, but the other point is, that its flawed, when it comes on to belief we can't blindly follow something and ignore all the evidences or philosophical reasons and logic consistency. I'm just saying you can't stand in a position where it is flawed But I appreciate that you respect Christ, but that won't be enough to get you into eternal life. You have to come to him, humbly and repent and follow him, for the wages of all sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life

[@sipzie7395]

@@maximusneal2642 well said, I may disagree on some points about coping in particular but I agree with your statement. Beautifully written, there is absolutely nothing incorrect with what you said. I do believe that perhaps better word choice could have been articulated in both our ends however I respect your point of view and I respect your belief in Christ. Have a great day ❤️

[@FB-rn1qm]

But i feel it is sometimes good to accept your situation if it is bad. I think its best to try to change and do everything you want and dream and have passion and feel suffering but i also think its good to learn when is the best time to just let something go and just accept your situation and be at peace

[@pipeline732]

What’s left from ancient stoicism apart from fragments of original philosophy is, basically, lecture notes (Epictetus, Rufus) or variations on them made by epigones (Aurelius, Seneca). But even though basically no theory proper survived, and what’s left from the real teachers (such as Epictetus) is mostly “rules and examples for memory”, thought experiments made to challenge intuitions and so on, it’s still pretty safe to assume that stoic theoreticians were in every way as sophisticated as their academic and peripatetic fellow philosophers. Today’s stoic philosophers (and others) have said this many times, and have also elaborated upon the “problems” discussed here in ways you don’t recognize at all. Now, taking Ryan Holiday of all people - i.e. an epigone of epigones - as the example of stoic _philosophy_ which to criticize is either unknowledgeable or insincere. Ok, so the straw man wasn't that impressive; big deal. Stoicism is _not_ about not feeling. Even the early stoics were explicit about this. It’s about not being unnecessarily trapped by destructive feelings. That is, when a feeling arises, as soon as possible you should ask yourself what it means and what you should do given the information it carries. Doesn’t sound so far from Nietzsches’ “Raise yourself above your life as above your suffering!” now, does it? Or from ‘‘The passions have been brought into ill repute on account of those who were not sufficiently strong to employ them” for that matter. After all stoicism is, at least partly, the training program for becoming “sufficiently strong to employ the feelings”, although it offers _practical_ ways of doing so rather than, as Nietzsche, a romantic ideal and little else but cynic vitriol for everyone else to cheer it on. One last thing: already Socrates - the closest to a role model or Sage the stoics got - were clear about the fact that feelings are necessary for rationality. After all it’s called philosophy - the _love_ of wisdom. The stoics were equally in agreement with him (and the rest of the ancient post-socratic schools) that the goal of philosophy was eudaimonia - variously translated as happiness, human flourishing and so on. If anything, learning how not to be trapped by emotions makes it possible for you to be even more happy when you’re happy (because you’ll be more secure that you’ll be able to handle things if they go south) and more constructive when you’re not.

[@Balazs227]

As the greatest invented philosopher Kreia has said: "Apathy is death, worse than death. A corpse at least feeds the worms."

[@Jones_707]

Based kotor fan

[@user-cz6ox6zw3x]

“Because at least a rotting corpse feeds the beasts and insects”

[@KevinJohnson-cv2no]

Kreia was a liar, meant to feed on those too weak to fully embrace the dark yet not stupid enough to fully embrace the light. Wish we could force choke her to make her stfu and take over Darth Nihilus/Sion's militia ourselves, since they were obviously too weak & distracted to do anything with it. Also, Stoics are weaklings who have pulled a grand trickery upon their own psyche; convincing themselves that accepting their weakness is the same as strength.

[@misakitakazaki8951]

People of culture, I see.

[@james0805]

So, what’s your point?

[@garretthughes7763]

After just finishing Meditations, this seemed like it'd be an interesting watch. I will say that some of his points don't cut as deep as he thinks they do. For example, framing new technologies like modern infrastructure as solutions to things that Romans would have considered external problems is silly. Obviously the line of what is external and what is internal will change. Things can cross that line. Then you can argue "but to see such advancements made, you must be fighting against nature to bend it to your will in some way." However, it's mentioned several times in meditations that a person's work, the kind of work that they do willing and effortlessly, is within their nature. The kind that you can spend 12 hours doing without even eating or taking a rest. That can include engineers, builders, physicists, nearly any profession you can think of. It's more about staying in your lane in that regard. The idea that there is an organization within nature and that we do best while sticking to our designated area or portion. The other point he made about the "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" really showed that he missed the main point of those particular phrases that are reminiscent of that mentality. The true point of something like Amor Fati is that you can control your disposition and outlook on life. It's all about how you handle the hardships and obstacles. It's something that a lot of people need to hear nowadays. Do you shut down or keep going every time there is suffering in your life. It's not a magic bullet philosophy but keeping some of the ideas it presents at the front of your mind can be beneficial overtime to making you more content and grateful.

[@ambermarie.]

Holiday's videos, reacting to the pandemic showed he was no where near Aurelius' stoic state of mind. Many 'gurus' were shook then and found it challenging to walk the talk.

[@HenryofSkalitz-ug8rc]

Fam marcus aurelius wasnt a stoic, a cuck yes but a stoic hell no.

[@nomoresunforever3695]

How did he respond?

[@jimgraham6722]

Pandemics are like wars and great depressions. They require society to respond in ways other than business as usual. Those relatively few of us remaining who have lived through polio, tuberculosis and smallpox epidemics (and pandemics) found nothing unusual or surprising in the measures needed to deal with Covid.

[@Cooper-eg3bv]

Link to video?

[@steviejay9245]

@amber2073 : Who does walk the talk perfectly? If I didn't have the STEM education to read the data/studies for myself, I would have overreacted, too. Most people don't have the benefit, and have only mass media, which is incentivized to pull eyeballs via sensationalism to go on. Most people aren't even aware of that massive bias for "Sky is Falling" narratives in the first place. Do we expect religious folks to behave perfectly in alignment with the teaching of their texts? The whole point of ideals is not a hard line that we must reach or none of it counts. It's something we strive towards knowing full well that perfection will never be in our grasp.

[@selimword25]

Was waiting for the Nietzsche quote on living according to nature, it did not disappoint

[@michaelbell6894]

Hasn't stoicism in the modern day mostly just become synonymous with resilience? I find aspects of the discipline quite useful as a lens through which to view my day-to-day. I am trying to couple it with a strong sense of gratitude for all I have been given and experienced.

[@hoi-polloi1863]

My understanding (from reading a little Marcus Aurelius) is that resilience is part of it; another part is consistency... if you are consistent with your own values, much of the criticism you hear will slide right off, because you're guided by your own beliefs, not those of the people around you.

[@laceboner7365]

The appeal of Stoicism is completely understandable, (I pursued it for a few years when I was younger,) but I think Nietzsche had the right of it. Treating real feelings as something to be subjugated or even sometimes discarded will alienate you from your own life. Of course you shouldn't allow them to control you, but the affirmation of life and new things means we have to struggle (in the sense of Hegel and Kojeve) with them honestly. I think Deleuze & Guattari's description of the "nonfascist life" here is particularly relevant-one process that could end the repression of desiring-production is "schizophrening," which they describe as connecting (the opposite of alienating) the mind to matter, and living its every intensity. Rather than live a life with strictly regulated pain and pleasure, alien to the very things that make us alive, our goal should be the affirmation of life through intensifying and creative approaches to the world.

[@lucasmed2351]

Interesting comment and points. Would love to learn more. Will search those authors.

[@gn.punpun]

Have you ever read any work by Carl Jung?

[@thekajalflaneur]

Wow ! Yes 🥰

[@ashkondastmalchi3510]

yipeeeeee a fellow deleuzian

[@opodeldox]

Stoicism ist not about discarding or subjugating feelings. Thats why this criticism has no real value.

[@Meelan72]

I have been reading on Zeno, Seneca, Epictetus and Marcus for almost a year now, and I have never been so calm and full of tranquillity. This is the first time in almost 15 years that I don't think about suicide. In fact, I wake up every morning thankful for another day and opportunity and can't wait to see what life brings me. I do my best to apply the principles into my day-to-day life, and although not everything works for me and this day/age, to me personally, this philosophy is the most plausible. Negative visualisation and the idea that you can choose to be or not to be harmed, are just a few of many principles that have saved me from unpleasant circumstances. I think philosophy just like monolithic religions should not be taken to extremes. Perhaps this is the reason why it has been working so well for me.

[@B_Van_Glorious]

Aurelius got me Journaling. I figured if it was good enough for the Philosopher King himself maybe it'd help me. Sometimes i don't have much to say, just recapping thoughts. Sometimes i write a letter to future descendants but in the language it'd use with a best friend I've lost touch with because that puts me in the head space to relay, or teach, and attempts at teaching always expose where I need further refining. Highly recommend.

[@diogeneslantern18]

Check out Musonius Rufus - That One Should Disdain Hardships

[@scientiadocumentarychannel]

You haven't read any of the stoic did you? And if you did... You didn't read it in Latin did you?

[@seanrrr]

Can't remember where I heard/read this, but I came across a critique of Stoicism (particularly Marcus Aurelius) that said it's not a philosophy for living a happy life; it's about avoiding pain. Like what was discussed in the video, a lot of Stoicism is about dealing with despair. It doesn't guarantee a happy, peaceful, or content life, but it can help remove oneself from intense pain.

[@atanamorell2]

A lifetime ago, I majored in philosophy and disliked stoicism because I had been taught that since I was smart and capable I could go anywhere and create a life of my choosing. This was insane. I was born a female in the south and the older I got the more personal agency was denied me. So I moved across the country and used my technological skills to be a part of Silicon Valley back when Google still had a guiding principle of "Don't be evil". I raged against the machine, fighting for women's equality and teaching my boys to use their strength to protect the weak. When my house was stolen by the banks in the 2007 financial crisis, I developed severe panic attacks that ultimately destroyed my marriage and exacerbated the MS that was then undiagnosed. My MS now leaves me sometimes struggling to see, walk, swallow and breathe freely. At this point I have more respect for Stoicism. Everything I had dreamed of for my life and the world I live in was only a dream. I learned that finding peace and happiness in each moment is the ultimate f**k you to a controlling capitalist society that is always telling you that you are not good enough, that you should want more, and that you should buy it from them. Looking back on my life, I think that although nothing went according to plan I did my best. My children turned into men I respect and enjoy being around. Death is less scary because I can see in it a potential relief from suffering for a body worn down by time. I try to use my emotions as data points but not get bogged down in them. My internal control is all that is left to me and it brings me joy that I can mitigate the effects that my lack of agency in the world has upon me. No one can destroy my happiness but me. Best to all of you 💕

[@kostaborojevic498]

If you have MS then you probably have mercury poisoning. Look into andrew cutler chelation. It has helped many with the same problems like yours.....

[@swagatochatterjee7104]

But you dont need to live miserably, and your happiness is nothing to the capitalist society that cares more about profit than you. They have milked you dry, and letting you rot with MS, without any compensation. A Stoic would say deal with it, this is the best. But how can it be the best, if the whole f-ing planet is in danger? How can I be happy in this times of despair, but not be alarmed that extinction is near, and strive to change the society out of desperation?

[@ze_kangz932]

I think what happened to you is you had the right mindset from the get go, but didn't have enough information around your surroundings to be able to have some more efficient control. You still succeeded in areas of your life, even if you convince yourself otherwise. But again, I hope you heal well and take care!

[@atanamorell2]

@@ze_kangz932 I appreciate the well wishes. Honestly, I don't understand your comment, but it was good of you to respond. Best to you 💕

[@VincentBarbosa1986]

The final chapter on the neostoicism of modernity, I feel you could've added one further point: although pandemics, crashes, and injustices are perceptively out of our control, it's lack of control is by design and therefore worth fighting to change. 😅

[@nananou1687]

I think the solution can come through a mixture of existentialism and stoicism. To accept that emotions are what make us and to work on bettering them and thereby bettering ourselves so we can live a life where we can be satisfied with ourselves.

[@HenockTesfaye]

I loved how you contextualized Stoicism. I now see Stoicism as something a survivor of a difficult and disconnect childhood would independently invent to cope with the world. This had been quite therapeutic. Thank you.

[@pablokorsia9293]

When you get here without ever hearing about ryan something daily stoics but as anything if you have only one stream of information your probably not getting the full picture , stoicism allows to focus on finding your ikigai and live a life of eudaimonia fullfilling your self discovered purpose in life through an endless process of individuation

[@Cooper-eg3bv]

I think a lot of peoples entry point is an easy read like Ryan Holiday. Easy to digest and understand if that opens the doors to philosophy for you by all means keep reading into it if it doesn’t extract what you can from it and learn from it, just know you’re not getting the whole picture but rather just a pixel.

[@markbrown2749]

Thorough analysis, wonderful exposition. Although I've been responsive to much of stoicism, "amor fati," or love of fate, always seemed too strong. I preferred to interpret it as "acceptance" of fate. "Pugna fati"can be dangerous, because fate will always win. To fight fate is to lose. One needs to know oneself very well in order to know what's in the realm of the possible and what isn't. Having a deep understanding of oneself will show where fate lies and how one can approach it productively.

[@SomewhatStoic]

Thanks for delving into Stoicism's pros and cons. You're spot-on about how life's messiness blurs the Stoic lines. The ancient Romans embracing it makes sense given their chaotic world. Your point about the Stoic divide between internal and external control is solid. Life's too intertwined for total indifference to external factors. The history lesson on Stoicism's roots and ties to ancient philosophy adds depth. Applying it to our world becomes trickier with such a huge worldview gap. The contrast between fatalism and our modern push for change is interesting. The "everything happens for a reason" idea clashes with our belief in shaping our world actively. Your analysis prompts a rethink of Stoicism for today, acknowledging the complexities. Thanks for the insights - it challenges a straightforward take on this ancient philosophy.

[@DennyGeorgeforChristMinistries]

stoicism is a guide post for me, it's a check on my mind getting out of control, having learned about Buddhism before stoicism, I must say stoicism is present within Buddhist teachings, and Buddhist teachings for me has been all about testing everything you hear with your life, and see if it holds true, and then accepting, instead of dogmatic acceptance.

[@suzannecarter445]

Wow! As always, you really gave us some food for thought. I read Ryan Holliday's Daily Stpic every morning along with a Chinese student who lives with me. He occasionally will point out something illogical to me and I realize we both had a feeling that something wasn't quite right. I never considered how the recent pressures of our society in which so much seems to be out of control have made us amenable to the ideas of Stocism.

[@hoi-polloi1863]

Funny thing... the typo "Stpic" made me think of Stipe Miocic, the (semi?) retired MMA fighter. Now *there* is a guy who takes life's blows in stride, yah?

[@r.mihail2041]

It's not about giving up on things you deem outside yourself it's about emotion management and accepting a bad outcome when all the possible ways to deal with the situation are exhausted and only when you are completely and fully sure there is nothing else for you to do in that kind of situation but wait/take your loss with dignity and honor

[@goosewithagibus]

Excellent essay. With pretty much all philosophies I admire, I often find them all to have tiny issues. I often find the best guidance comes from multiple philosophies with a healthy serving of skepticism.

[@iordanchis2437]

I find it hard to believe that stoicism, or any philosophy for that matter, would consider the concept of internals and externals as basic as described here. As being two fixed lists of things that are and aren't in our control. Externals such as body, health or wealth can be taken under our control, to a certain degree. They might not be as absolute as our convictions and aspirations, but then again even these are subject to change under external influence. What I believe the terms internals and externals are ment to do here, is to help us categorize things and situation we get exposed to, as a excercise in self reflection. Knowing our internals, the mechanism we control, can give us ease of mind when facing new challenges. We can however also decide to take control of the initial list of externals and, in turn internalise them, thus adding to the pool of internals that we own.

[@lorenzoe.leonard4160]

One small criticism I want to make, I only make it because I really like your videos and I always enjoy watching them. I don't really like this greenscreen, I much prefer the outdoor videos like the one on Spinoza or Germany. I understand that this one takes much more time, but I liked that kind of video better (from an aesthetic point of view, of course, I am not talking about the quality). Keep up the good work

[@RobertN734]

I appreciate you're trying to cover a broad range of topics, and I've never heard of Ryan Holiday, but this video is a very surface level reading of stoicism. Your end conclusion at 47:40 is awful because it doesn't engage with the material. In this video you mention how deeply interconnected stoic metaphysics is with their ethics, but you never actually engage with their metaphysics. You brush the metaphysics off as being from a different time, directly stating it's wrong only because of that, and use that assumption to unmoor the ethics. Your reading of their ethics is cherry-picked. Stoics are not discarding emotion to be cold and logical, they're discarding emotion to be virtuous. Their goal is to set emotions aside when they would interfere with doing best thing: being joyful, being helpful, being just, etc.. I will grant you, this distinction is a common enough mistake that Seneca warned casual stoics away from it, but it still is a mistake. Stoics absolutely never advocate for stagnation over progress, as elements of progress are virtues that should be pursued. Their notions of virtue are different from the Judeo-Christian ones commonly used now, so you can't apply the common meaning of virtue without regard. It's 49 minute video and you never mention the word "determinism" which is the central mechanic of their metaphysics. You deride their belief in "fates", but modern physicalist determinists are winning the free will debate. Turns out, even if you take it as a coincidence, stoic advice on how to behave in a deterministic universe is very applicable. The more hard-core stoic you read, the further away you get from public facing stoics like Seneca or Epictitus, you get into the deepest determinism where consciousness is a passive observer of physical behaviors. That better deals with the concrete problems of akrasia that we still experience than any free will philosophy.

[@TheFlyingBrain.]

Excellent. You've touched on, pulled apart, and clarified just about everything that has left me feeling unsettled and concerned with the current wave of neo-stoicism. Humans are continually seeking the answer, never guessing that once found, answers are inevitably found to be irrelevant. Thank you.

[@matthewbolduc4022]

I would do more research on the philosophy. Living your best life with reason and logic. Taking care of our community and our environment. Working on mastering the things you have direct control over. How could we not all benefit from more of that?

[@csatimaci]

As for the "dichotomy of control": sometimes is borders stretch beyond the classical line, but sometimes they might also bend inward, not letting us freely decide over our own decisions and actions.

[@lewisrobinson3380]

47:56 Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius and Seneca didn’t live in the Bronze Age . Hell the early Stoa didn’t even begin until nearly 900 years after the Bronze Age was considered to have ended. Those 3 were alive 300-400 years after Zeno of Citium died.

[@unassailable6138]

He didn't mean stone age literally and he also didn't mean they were warlords literally. Are you autistic? His tone of voice in the conclusion denoted a funny exaggerated and informal sum up of what the stoics were: people who lived a long time ago without information and dealed with brutality.

[@LothlorBass]

First off, love the video, amazing work. I love the research you’ve done. Secondly though, I believe what Ryan and Marcus meant when they talked about what you “can’t control” is that they were referring to things that happen to you. I believe the focus was not to focus on the bad thing that happened, but how you can react and adapt in the situation

[@thomasdebuch3046]

Great point. This video is just a big misrepresentation of amor fati and memento mori and I’m glad that we recognize it.

[@greggary7217]

One does not usually separate from the world, but rather detaches one’s emotions from that which is not under one’s control, allowing one’s self to be unburdened by yearning for the impossible. The very act of doing that is tacit acknowledgement that we are very much, of this world.

[@SussiestCat]

Whenever someone mentions Stoicism I instantly expect the worst pop philosophy drivel. I really liked this way of talking about it on it's own terms, although a bit deeper of exploration of the new pop stoicism phenomenon would've also been very interesting.

[@DarthTanaris]

Hard to do a deep dive into something so shallow. Actual Stoic philosophy is rich with wisdom; the current trend isn't that. This video tried to tow the line between modern "bro-icism" and the actual philosophy. Best thing it did was bring up some valid criticisms and show why you shouldn't try to follow a 2000 year old philosophy 100%, but there are definitely some bits of wisdom to glean from the Stoics.

[@finneganlindsay]

Yeah guys I read deleuze and foucault and Generic anti-capitalism stuff I'm so much better hahhahaha right guys

[@Everyone321]

@@finneganlindsay true and correct

[@jahjahjah213]

So you're essentially just whiny at people trying to make their lives better.

[@Everyone321]

@jahjah except Marcus Aurelius/ modern stoicism is just a cope

[@johannsebastianbach3411]

I love your videos, i had a quick editing criticism however: sometimes the music (which really is well edited and adds a lot to the points you are trying to make during the video) ends up being a little too loud! Thanks again for all your work!

[@surfside75]

Amd too busy taking away from the message. -1cent

[@BobBogaert]

A lot of things going on here... 1) Absolutely true that Stoicism in the way it is taught on KZbin is a disgusting brand of self-help pop philosophy reeking of the ugly side of capitalism and elitism. 2) The fact that there's no clear crisp line between the things we can control and things we can't, doesn't devalue the distinction. The fact that the line is blurry doesn't mean there is no useful distinction. Just as a muddy river still has two sides. 3) The distinction between 'things in our control' and 'things out of our control' is unjustly extrapolated to the external (nature) and internal (mind), which I don't believe is an actual Stoic viewpoint, maybe that of an individual author. The stoics in general are not fatalists who retreat into the mind. Many are 'men of action', as admitted in the last few minutes of the video. 4) There's the idea that Stoics just accept nature as it is, which they of course don't. The Romans were the greatest builders of industrial-scale farms, aqueducts, bathhouses, etc. If doing something about famine, thirst or poor hygiene was in their power, they would of course do it. A Stoic accepts a bolt of lightning striking their house as an act of fate. Yet after the invention of the lightning rod, it would become 'in their control' to do something about it, and then their house being stricken becomes an act of negligence by not installing a rod. 5) Epictetus' manumission is glossed over. 6) Stoicism is not a dispassionate philosophy. You can easily find scenes of Stoics excited by earthly pleasures at feasts of wine and wits. The difference is that when the day comes when feasting is over and it's time for an arduous campaign, they will resign and do their duty. 7) Having emotions is just fine. The whole idea is to have them, and yet not be a slave to them. Same thing applies to reason. Nothing in excess. 8) Stoicism is a philosophy of both a slave (Epictetus) and emperors (Marcus Aurelius). While here it is very much depicted as a 'slavish' philosophy. Looks like Nietzsche and Hegel's interpretations get a big shout-out, these are exactly the characters who destroyed the enlightenment. 9) T&N says "the point is that it is impossible to resign from life" while he literally just admitted Stoics don't resign from life. Intermission: the part about 'control' is written from a perspective of increasing uncertainty in life. The deeper point is exactly the opposite. More and more things are in our control (from successful childbirth to palliative care). The 'area of applicable Stoicism' is getting smaller and smaller, to accepting the outcome of natural disasters and that death is a dignitary who eventually does come knocking and expects reverence. The acceptance of fate is less and less necessary, and yet in those few key moments, it would serve us well. 10) This is a really bad example of someone not fully getting the first point, in this case, because he can't accept that if there is no clear line between 'what we can control' and 'what we can't control', and then goes off the deep end. 11) To close with a practical argument... if I get an incurable form of cancer 5 years from now, I will Stoically resign in my fate, accept that death is unavoidable, and enjoy the last days in the love of my family with a calm heart. If somehow there is an experimental cure that might work or at least give the possibility of control, I would go for it, put everything on blue, scratch lottery tickets, cajole the well-off to get that cure, and try to live another day. There would be nothing unstoic about that. 12) I'm not actually a stoic. I don't need much more philosophy except for 'know yourself' and 'nothing in excess'. All else is commentary.

[@Skittenmeow]

Thank you for picking apart and verbalising why Stoicism never sat quite right with me. I could never clearly put it into words, other than "but I do have some control over that external factor, I can help make a change, I have helped make changes, I can get people together to force bigger changes, it doesn't have to be like this, it's Stoicism just telling me to stay in my place and be quiet?"

[@jimgraham6722]

No, not at all. What it tells you is you have only one shot at life so in the circumstances you encounter, make the best of it.

[@NilsMontanEsq]

Hi Erin, it's better to think of stoicism as a form of protection against the human tendency to go mental over things we cannot control. The stoics never said that one should turn into a slug and just accept what the world throws at you.

[@colekuhlers3003]

If you want to make a change you can, you control your actions but you cannot control others actions.

[@alelzarterl212]

There are things you can influence but not control

[@gn.punpun]

Stoicism is not pacifism. Just because things are out of your control does not mean you cannot influence the direction of events. You cannot control things external to you but you can most certainly influence them. The two are not mutually exclusive. This video is great but falls on its face because the narrator doesn't understand the difference between controlling something and influencing something.

[@samikhan-js5lj]

Stoicism can be essential if you need to survive, but you need more to thrive. The difference between controlling your emotions and resigning to your fate , and using them to carve your own

[@nikolaosdrakos3537]

Lol I love how egotistical and egocentric the human race has become .. we really think we can "thrive "while most of us will be gone and long forgotten in, let's say maximum 80 years 😂😂

[@Cynicalian]

Very well said, you've articulated what I've been thinking regards the Neo-stoics for a couple of years. There is no acknowledgement of the fact that a 1st and 2nd century Rome was a very different world to the one we live in. Not to fight injustice is to accept injustice, to accept injustice is to give your tacit support. Acceptance is surrender.

[@Quark.Lepton]

Today, in my mid-seventies, I find no compelling benefit in debating the attributes or failings of stoicism, though it is no doubt an indelible part of my character. For what it is and was meant to be, it has served many humans well as a kind of ‘personal philosophy’-as have most other philosophical schools to this degree or that. In some ways, practiced stoicism contradicts itself, while also frustrating and even angering those who disapprove of its antecedently-supposed basis of inference and the syllogism from which the stoics draw their fundamental conclusions. I do, however, find it exciting that today’s young minds (20s/30s) are delving into the thought processes of the preeminent stoics and virtually debating them (and others)-ultimately serving to seriously enhance such ancient thought. I sure hope to read more of it! My only suggestion is that quite a bit more consideration needs to be given to the time period and the (comparatively) powerful social dynamics of-not only Seneca’s and Epictetus’s day-but of all those antecedently relevant thinkers like Rufus, then of course onward to Voltaire, Joyce, Nietzsche, et al and their dalliance with or sincere embracement of stoicism during their own historically relevant eras (Industrialization, War, etc.). Still fascinating after all these years!

[@flyingmax9029]

The serenity prayer is eloquent. It once gave me a bit of peace. The trouble for me over time became that last bit about “the wisdom to know the difference”. I’ve found “The Chinese Farmer” is closer to my experience of life and brings me some peace when I think I’ve really screwed up.

[@YouTubeTryingToBeTwiter31581]

4:55 You don not control the external you influence the external world around you. You do not control how others act but you can influence them.

[@Enzo012]

I'd say what they were really trying to get across is that you can end up giving far too much of sh*t about things you shouldn't really be giving much of a sh*t about. It's not necessary entirely wrong or incompatible with the modern age, it perhaps just needs a little bit of a tinkering so you can give a little bit of sh*t about certain things to a certain extent.

[@jimjajmus]

thank you for this channel. finally learning history in the best way - drawing parallels and differences to today.

[@billyscenic5610]

It's strange, but hearing the thump of your chest when you tap it and the quiet creak of your chair, are comforting to me. A labor that cannot hide itself completely.

[@vsssa1845]

it seems my understanding of the stoic writing was quite different to what they actually meant. i was looking at it with a modern pov, now i understand some of the things in stoic writing which i thought were strange. like the live according to nature meant, act how physics, human psychology would would work and not have delusions, i never thought stoics had a teleological view. Reading through a lens of crippling anxiety, seeing emotions as something external enabled me to see it not as some demon inside me but simply an overreacting part of my mind. its a starting point, but i now understand emotions exist for a reason and best possible circumstance would be having emotions evoked in a rational way, if that makes sense.

[@gn.punpun]

This is exactly how I understood stoicism

[@Grandof-the-PentastarAlignment]

Here is a reminder that a philosophy can evolve and that we aren't forced to treat the very first iteration as the only correct one. This video basically just wants to poison the well so you never engage with any stoic ideas and let your emotions and your will control your fate, or at least that is how it comes across. This would only result in a storm of blind chaos without reason. To be aware of the potential pointlessness of your actions and thoughts is absolutely necessary to evolve a non-myopic view of the world...

[@vidlarious9951]

Ryan Holiday is the type of self-help you go to when you first start reading the genre. Then one day you become an adult and seek thoughtful, nuanced perspectives like this video.

[@deaschowieda]

This video is even more flawed than those it criticizes. Stoism isn't obsolete just because men build bridges or roads. Those were built in Ancient Rome and still earlier than that, already. In this video there is a painful conflation of 'influence' and 'control' which is everything but helpful. What difference does it make to believe polytheistically compared to monotheistically to atheistically? Any a belief-system is to be verified or falsified only after death either way, so one has still to come to terms with what they can't change but still happens to them in life. In other words - tragedy.

[@alexatedw]

Then you realize, holiday had it right

[@derpfaddesweisen]

​@@deaschowieda The difference is that stoicism assumes and necessitates a teleological worldview. Without it, stoicism becomes an empty gesture, neoliberal self-help ethics and nothing else

[@serafiiiine]

An amazing video. I don't know much about stoicism beyond popular accounts of it, and I've learnt a lot through your breakdown of it. I even feel a little hope which is rare these days!

[@alexanderkhachaturyan988]

"There is one thing, and only one thing, in which it is granted to you to be free in life, all else being beyond your power: that is to recognize and profess the truth". L. Tolstoy ( who also happened to be a Stoic).

[@WingXBlade]

I think you’re missing the point when debating the gray areas where you can or can’t control. Using your example, yes, you do have influence in number of people that watch your video but you can’t be totally sure of achieving it. That’s what separates stuff you can control vs what you can’t. It also helps in detaching yourself from the end result to avoid disappointments and frustrations when things go south.

[@charleshogg5459]

Good observation.

[@userMB1]

Loved this video! I'm all up for taking a critical look at life philosophies. I have a couple points i want to point out. 11:00 here the Stoics say that you should reflect that things can go really bad like if you have a child, you should reflect on that they could die without reaching old age. I don't think this is very healthy at all because it sucks the joy out of everything. What has helped me immensely is not having any expectations at all. Let's say you're going on a date. Don't get excited and don't be anxious. Just have no expectations at all. At the back of your mind you know that something can go great or terrible but if you consciously think about it, chances are you're going to get disappointed. 23:13 "we can either spend this moment wishing it could be different, or we can embrace the moment". This is what i leaned in dialectical behavioral therapy. İt's called Radical Acceptance. Accepting reality as it is without judgement *so you can deal with it accordingly.* So Radical Acceptance serves a purpose. For example, your end up in a car crash because the other driver wasn't paying attention. İf you don't accept reality as it is, you might get outraged and hurt someone or yourself and go to jail or something. However, if your radically accept reality, you can now think clearly what your first step is going to be. However, as a life philosophy it's bad. I'm from Turkish origin and this is the main reason why Turkish people never invented anything or cured a disease even though the Ottoman Empire was very wealthy. "İt's Allah's will", "this is just how life is", and these kind of believes are the main culprit. Glad you pointed this out. this:"what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger" is indeed very toxic and i'm glad you pointed this out. 32:00 Of course in modern scientific understanding every emotion, feeling and thought are of yourself and not from outside or even some demon of angel. However, in therapy for OCD you learn that you should see the intrusive thoughts as not your own, not part of you. This is essential to learn how to cope with the disorder. This topic touches on the concept of the self which is a super interesting topic where there is no consensus of what it actually is.

[@DarthTanaris]

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger is Nietzsche, not Stoics, ironically.

[@BigHenFor]

Science still doesn't understand the mind. We can map the structure, tracking the breadcrumbs of clues pointing to an evolution from the ancient, visceral brain based on survival, the later evolved parts that manage how we interact with our environment, and our youngest part of the brain, the intellectual and executive functions. But how we construct what we understand as reality is still vague, even to science. And science as practiced, is subject to our subjectivities as anything else we do. Thus behavioural science is shaped by those who pay for the research, and thus may not be directed towards our welfare, or the greater good, whatever we think that might be. So please, question everything. Take nothing for granted

[@damiancampbell7534]

"Radical acceptance" has always been a big issue of mine with stoicism and eastern philosophy. It's so antithetical to what life is about, survival and strife. Acceptance strongly feels to me like you're just giving up and burying your head in the sand.

[@DarthTanaris]

@@damiancampbell7534 acceptance of circumstances doesn't mean resignation to them.

[@kalehsaar]

i don't believe "reflecting on possibility of one's child dying" is meant to be taken as literally "regularly spending hours meditating on that", which would indeed probably do more harm, then good. but to my mind it's more akin to fire drills or learning CPR: neither is a particularly fun process by itself, you - in general case - probably shouldn't put _too_ much time into it and you most likely wouldn't even need it in the end either way. but if against all odds you actually will - it very well may be the difference between life and death. it's always better to be prepared, then not - given you can do it safely. also, that specific advice was _way_ more relevant up until relatively recently in history due to infant mortality rates.

[@garyhuntsr71698]

Outstanding and revolutionary for me... So enlightening that makes me understand that life is rather fleeting and misery is the norm... so I will never complain anymore!❤

[@StoicEvolution1]

"He who laughs at the human race deserves better of it than he who mourns for it, for the former leaves it better hope than the latter." - Seneca

[@des5594]

Stoicism is not the resignation to Fate, but rather the acceptance of Fate so that it may be overcome where possible.

[@GeahkBurchill]

There is no time in which I do not picture Epictetus as an old bearded guy with absolutely fabulous knockers.

[@alijibran2973]

Well, I have three points. Firstly, Stoicism did not mean that one should passively accept his place in a given society. Stoicism is in fact realising one 's potential and then to use that potential for a bigger goal. Marcus Aurelius said numerous time that time given is very short so don't waste it. Seneca managed his properties well and Epictetus rose from a slave to a Philosopher Master. So stoicism is not philosophy of passivity but of active struggle to realize oneself. Secondly, even Nietzche says in Anti Chirist that passions should be dealt rationally which means that when Nietzche suggests that destroying Passions is anti life at the same time he is alluding that completely following Passions can be highly detrimental for one's life. Third point is that everyone needs stoicism at some time in life when the harsh realities suddenly change our overview of life ( I mean in case of death of some of our very close ones or some other personal calamitous situation). No matter how educated one is, the fact is that death of parents dramatically transforms us ( this can be felt by only those who have suffered through this situation). So it's better that one should be accustomed to tragedies since childhood so that his coping mechanism should be strong against some great personal loss.

[@andreymelnikov13]

The only purpose of ethic school of thought, as you mentioned, is to give to people way to a happy life. And yes, it is beneficial for overall happiness not to expect much , be mindful of your emotions and expectations and live temperate life. I don’t see any problems or contradictions…

[@generalboyit7867]

This is one of the most fascinating videos I have ever watched.

[@lydiadeetzz999]

BACK WHEN MARCUS AURELIUS WAS MARKY MARK😂😂😂😂 i literally laughed out loud, i so appreciate you made this reference.

[@3mi3mi]

I think the superficial misconception about stoicism is that you need to become emotionless or let go of any sensitivity, and I noticed it to be popular among men who are already socialized into not being vulnerable. All it is about really is accepting reality and being okay despite what happens, like in Buddhism, where we accept the fact that we all will suffer and to let go of any strong attachments. That doesn’t mean you can’t be joyless or feel love, have no aspirations, or not allow yourself to process negative emotions; just don’t let those things control and consume you.

[@edwardgonzalez6331]

The Stoic dichotomy of control may not present a distinct division, but it does offer a valuable framework for comprehending what aspects of our lives are within our control and what is not. The Stoics did not propose complete indifference to external factors; instead, they encouraged focusing on what can be controlled while being ready to accept the outcomes of external circumstances. With roots in ancient philosophy, the Stoic worldview remains relevant and applicable in modern times. This relevance is partly due to its emphasis on self-improvement and personal responsibility, which has contributed to a resurgence in interest in recent years. Contrary to common misconceptions, the Stoics did not advocate for the suppression of emotions despite their emphasis on rationality and self-control. They recommended learning to manage our emotions and utilize them constructively. The Stoic principle of living in accordance with nature may appear limiting, but it promotes an appreciation for the interconnectedness of all things and the pursuit of harmony with the surrounding world. Living in harmony with the natural order of the universe involves recognizing and accepting the uncontrollable aspects of life while cultivating our rational and moral faculties. This development enables us to achieve inner tranquility and to handle external events with a clear and rational mind. By acknowledging our place within the larger universal system and striving for harmony, we can attain a sense of purpose and fulfillment in life.

[@AdrianMarquez-mn7ox]

I've been a longtime viewer of your videos, and I must say, you've truly peaked your craft. I completely agree with your perspective and insights.

[@alexanderkhachaturyan988]

Nice try! Though you seem to be analyzing R. Holiday's version of Stoicism rather than the versions of the classic Stoics. The beauty of Stoicism is not in the fancy modern terms like "dichotomy of control", the beaty of Stoicism is that in simple terms you get the answers for the most important questions in life. Take, for example, the famous beginning of Book II of Marcus Aurelius' "Meditations". In a few lines he says all you got to know about life: that a human being lives not only by his body, but also and more importantly by his spirit (divine part) and that this spirit is the same in all human beings, so the only way to treat others is to love them. Everything else is just elaboration of those points. And in no philosophy or religion we got to something higher than that.

[@OmarKhaled-em2mf]

I appreciate your video, and I appreciate that you took the time to challenge stoic views. However, I believe that your video is based on a core misunderstanding of stoicism. I attempted to counter each point you made (Of course, you had valuable insight, however, it's all based on misunderstanding of stoic principles or simply not knowing them) but the comment ended up being too long. I would advise a deeper dive into stoic theory because every single point you make was discussed and solved at length before by the ancient stoics and the ones that followed.

[@lightbluedev]

Just discovered this channel a day ago. Really appreciate the content and your style of teaching. Thanks!

[@GeahkBurchill]

Personally I much prefer Tsunetomo to Epictetus. There are a lot of philosophical similarities but the differences are what make Tsunetomo far interesting and balanced for me. The love of balance being one of them.

[@malthael5025]

Stoicism is good to improve as a person and have strong emotions. However, after my Gestalt therapy class, I realized that stoic repressing leads connection loss between our bodies, minds and emotions. Thank you for this awesome video!

[@gn.punpun]

Gestalt therapy is horrible and your rendition of stoicism is deeply flawed

[@pablolucics.5699]

​@@gn.punpun No

[@adrobj707]

Nietzsche is the obvious philosopher to use but I see a lot of Heidegger in your own suggestions and philosophy. Of course H was famously very much influenced by N, and H’s language is more opaque than N’s so it would be tougher to use, but you do a great job translating his existentialism in a way that makes it livable. Whether you were trying to or not. Being one with the world, experiencing anxiety as something that lets us see life, the negative use of the world as a resource rather than letting ourselves be gathered by it, living aware of our coming death after a lifetime instead of as of its coming tomorrow, etc. Also, I understand Nietzsche’s later in life sense of amor fati as very different from that of the Stoics. That it was about yeasaying to the passions and the “externals” and accepting how it all turns out. Rather than simply accepting how the external world shapes you, but to shape the external world as much as you can and accepting and loving the outcome. Loved the video editing, you’ve really leveled up! This is some pro-level stuff worthy of my few Patreon dollars.

[@willguggn2]

I actually discovered Stoicism before all these modern-day gurus came into the picture. For me, living according to nature meant more than just adopting the Romans' beliefs about it. Rather, I interpret it as studying nature through our modern form of natural philosophy, based on the scientific knowledge we have today. Stoicism was never just about studying ancient texts and ignoring contemporary circumstances and knowledge. When it comes to 'amor fati', I personally see it as embracing the variance in outcomes that can result from both our actions and external factors. In situations where there is inherent randomness or uncertainty, such as a game of dice or cards, it never makes sense to be solely focused on the outcome. Instead, we should assess our actions independently of the outcome as best as we can, recognizing that some things are outside of our control. I don't see much of an issue with the fact that there isn't always a clear distinction between what we can and cannot influence.

[@therealpotatomottz8706]

Excellent video as always sir

[@zzzaaayyynnn]

Stoicism works great during times of great hardship, when one is aware of a cruel ruling power or cruel gods, when fate or determinism is a possible fear: reminds me of Buddhism in some ways, to reject desire and victimization by your body, your will, and the life one is born into.

[@agatastaniak7459]

Indeed. I got raised in a mixture of both and I believe your conclusion is very accurate. In fact I do find both traditions very functional to my daily life. It often simplifies things which modern day Western culture prefers to overcomplicate many times.

[@zzzaaayyynnn]

@@agatastaniak7459 Do you think that things in the wealthiest countries are so bad as to demand a stoic worldview? The West still enjoys a lot of material goods, pleasures, and relative freedoms.

[@Daoland-Everywhere]

In China during the Ming dynasty several neo-confucians were stoics. But their stoicism did focus mainly on attitude to life and calming one's emotions. Their ideas were based on the alternation of good and bad things happening, so we just need to sit it out when things are outside our control.

[@BalkanSpectre]

Sometimes I find certain cope mechanisms that I have used during my lifetime to be very similar with Stoic teachings before reading them. It's weird to think how much of it is just sophisticated (and awe sounding) trauma and cope

[@elizabethhazel6039]

Well-produced video. Stoicism isn't just a slave philosophy for enduring a bad condition; it's also a master's philosophy that rationalizes the fate of slaves, and the poor and wretched of society. Emotional detachment also strips away empathy for others, and gives little motivation for improving conditions for oneself, let alone for others. That's particularly true if contemporary neo-Stoic sound bites promote detachment from externals/emotions without grounding the listeners in a sound basis of virtue and ethics. It is incredibly difficult for contemporary people to grasp the ancient concept of "Fate." Fate was an all-powerful deity; and even other gods couldn't negotiate with her. Fate was an inaccessible entity beyond all connection. Human fate was also linked to daimons, non-corporeal entities attached to a soul that influenced the individual for good and bad. Ancient views of Fate had complicated pieces and parts that are excluded from modern discussions. As I see a lot of writing about fate and destiny in my work, I can sincerely say that the modern views of destiny and fate are badly misunderstood. Even the 20th century's updated and worthwhile writings about fate and destiny have been largely ignored. Fate lapses into a lot of superstitions and half-baked rationalizations without a decent context. Upcycling ancient philosophical and spiritual ideas always comes with a dire risk of those ideas being garbled or dumbed-down. Some may recall the craze for a book called "The Celestine Prophecy" published in 1993. It was a best-seller and people were all atwitter about how wonderful it was. I read it and was appalled at the content - badly regurgitated and mauled eastern philosophies stripped of context and deeper meaning. People WANT a quick fix. The popularity of Holiday's daily Stoic nuggets is comprehensible - he provides quickie sound bites that give listeners a brief thrill of self-justification but lack the context of a complete and coherent philosophical system. There just aren't any shortcuts to a coherent spiritual and philosophical worldview. It isn't fast food and you can't go through a drive-through window to obtain it. You have to do the work - study, read, compare ideas and ponder.

[@anchorthesun3438]

Well said , wonderful and intelligent comment

[@13SZ]

Around 42m, you remark on participating in a lifetime, a larger project. But, isn’t the very grounds of stoicism participating and joining with the providential Logos? Which is arguably the greatest project to participate in - beyond the individual. I do agree with the commentary you’ve made, but it feels like we’re only addressing the top of the iceberg of stoicism: how it’s being marketed vs its metaphysics, and the underlying systems/beliefs. But, overall, yes,neo-neo-stoicism co-opts the therapeutic portion without the underlying metaphysical/belief system. You briefly touch on how they studied many fields, but that is fundamental to the stoic belief: katalepsis. This concept ties together their ethics, physics, metaphysics, logic, all of it. It’s a bit like taking Christ/the bible out of Christianity and only relying on the conventional understanding of it. Or, keeping the grammar of it and removing the Christianity out of it (which is what Nietzche portends.) I think looking into Zeno, Chryssipus and the other more foundational members and writers of Stoicism would change the tune significantly, especially your closing statement. “The Big Misunderstanding In Modern Stoicism” would be more accurate. As in a lot of modern stoicism, the key metaphysical foundations are left out. The video seems to argue against that form of Stoicism and not the comprehensive one. Thank you for the video. Big fan of the channel.

[@13SZ]

Some of the other comments said it more concisely. It seems like an argument against a straw man Stoicism. Which discourages Stoicism as opposed to encourage pop-Stoics to seek the rich foundations of it.

[@nananou1687]

I think stoicism can be simply distilled down as a lesson for today's world Do your deeds without expecting a change, but still striving for it

[@J0MBi]

42:00 good point, except none of us really know how long we will be around for and just the thought of these future events, many of which we really do have no control over, are the source of much suffering in the present. Stoic meditions can be a good way to let go of the anxiety which plagues many people, by taking control of our sense of self and accepting our limitations. Taken to it's logical end point the philosophy has problems, but as a strategy for managing the overwhelming experiences of our individual lives it can be very useful. It very much depends on who you are as an individual how useful or appealing it will be, and whether the positives of this way of thinking outweigh the limitations it brings.

[@emil_rainbow]

Cogent breakdown. Thank you, Lewis.