What is your opinion about adsurdism and stoicism?
-
I think they both have a time and a place.
I appreciate this. Why do we have to align only with one approach/perspective? Being versatile is more alluring
-
This post did not contain any content.
When it comes to philosophies there are so many interpretations that drift over space, time, and individuals. Almost all have interpretations or ideas that aren't bad and ones that are.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Stoicism, properly understood, is in my opinion the only possibility humanity has for survival.
Unfortunately, stoicism is rarely properly understood.
Virtually every institutionalized societal evil exists at base because some number of people are stubbornly clinging to the delusion of control over others.
As but one example, while the wave of trans bigotry exists because some number pf people believe that they should have the authority to control other people's gender identifications, at heart it exists because those people believe that they can do so. That's the foundation upon which their ever-more aggressive attempts are built. It's really not a matter of whether they should or not - they literally can't.
Stoicism would've already informed them of that fact, and would've informed them of the harm that's done - not merely to others but to themselves - by ignoring that fact.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
Can we go with absurd stoicism or stoic absurdism? Seems to me, it might be more fun that way
-
This post did not contain any content.
Stoicism is frequently misunderstood and generally the concept of equanimity is a positive one, which is why it transcends stoicism. upekkha as one of the four divine attitudes in Buddhism, the abrahamic religions generally push the whole “god did it so trust in the plan” angle (Christian forbearance and I forget the Jewish word but Islam comes from aslama, peace from surrender), etc. Even Epicureanism had ataraxia
Absurdism makes sense in a post religious world (depending on audience, obviously) and is more hopeful than nihilism. Existentialism is interesting in comparison: can we create meaning? Is meaning that we create transient? I don’t know.
Both absurdism and stoicism make the important acknowledgement that reality is indifferent to your plight
-
Stoicism, properly understood, is in my opinion the only possibility humanity has for survival.
Unfortunately, stoicism is rarely properly understood.
Virtually every institutionalized societal evil exists at base because some number of people are stubbornly clinging to the delusion of control over others.
As but one example, while the wave of trans bigotry exists because some number pf people believe that they should have the authority to control other people's gender identifications, at heart it exists because those people believe that they can do so. That's the foundation upon which their ever-more aggressive attempts are built. It's really not a matter of whether they should or not - they literally can't.
Stoicism would've already informed them of that fact, and would've informed them of the harm that's done - not merely to others but to themselves - by ignoring that fact.
I was just pondering something similar -- a lot of the current weirdness seems to come from a refusal to face mortality head on. They start reaching for straws, hoping that there is some magic elixir that will save them, then getting angry when there isn't one.
-
I was just pondering something similar -- a lot of the current weirdness seems to come from a refusal to face mortality head on. They start reaching for straws, hoping that there is some magic elixir that will save them, then getting angry when there isn't one.
Yes - that's another good example.
Even on a very simple level, that's harmful to oneself, because all time and energy spent vainly trying to control things one cannot control is necessarily time and energy not spent on the things one can control.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I like them both. For stoicism, I like Massimo Pigliucci's work. For absurdism, Camus. Are there any modern day Camus'?
p.s. I created a community for discussing topics like these in more depth: https://yall.theatl.social/c/philosophy_of_life
-
Meta-utilitarianism? Apply the most useful philosophy to each problem separately?
syncretism is my default. The only reason to choose one at the exclusion of another is if conclusions are based on fundamentally different assumptions. For example, ancient stoics would borrow from Epicureans when they made a good point. Likewise, Thomas Jefferson borrowed from both John Locke and others when drafting the Declaration of Independence.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15f6pl/comment/c7m1fpn/ -
This post did not contain any content.
The universe doesn't care, and you can't change anything.
-
This post did not contain any content.
My entire opinion of absurdism is formed by cartoon-Camus from Existential Comics.
My understanding is that life is absurd, but we must rebel against the absurd and create meaning in our lives despite it. And we do this by being sexy and sleeping with lots of babes.
Solid philosophy.
-
Meta-utilitarianism? Apply the most useful philosophy to each problem separately?
For me, I have a mental knapsack full of philosophical approaches.
A situations scope, impact, and effect may demand a different philosophical framework to meet my or the groups goals.
There are some ideologies I won't touch or entertain. There are some I can only accept under very specific terms and timelines. I have my favorites and more that I'm friendly with.
So ya, a sort of meta-utlitarianism!
-
For me, I have a mental knapsack full of philosophical approaches.
A situations scope, impact, and effect may demand a different philosophical framework to meet my or the groups goals.
There are some ideologies I won't touch or entertain. There are some I can only accept under very specific terms and timelines. I have my favorites and more that I'm friendly with.
So ya, a sort of meta-utlitarianism!
I'll begin by confessing that I also tend to apply philosophies situationally, but I'd be curious how you'd respond to the criticism that such an approach sort of gives away the game that philosophical applications are all post hoc rationalizations for our existing, non-rational preferences. I've found that to be the strongest criticism of such an approach.
-
Stoicism, properly understood, is in my opinion the only possibility humanity has for survival.
Unfortunately, stoicism is rarely properly understood.
Virtually every institutionalized societal evil exists at base because some number of people are stubbornly clinging to the delusion of control over others.
As but one example, while the wave of trans bigotry exists because some number pf people believe that they should have the authority to control other people's gender identifications, at heart it exists because those people believe that they can do so. That's the foundation upon which their ever-more aggressive attempts are built. It's really not a matter of whether they should or not - they literally can't.
Stoicism would've already informed them of that fact, and would've informed them of the harm that's done - not merely to others but to themselves - by ignoring that fact.
There's also stoic bros now. Their brains have managed to connect alpha masculinity to stoicism. They're like the viking bros where they gain security from people seeing them as enduring, dependable, and tough. They obviously have no idea of the philosophy in detail.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I'm a stoic.
-
Stoicism has gotten me through my incredibly hard life (wife died less than three months ago and I was a full time caregiver for her for a lot time before that).
Sending love your way.
-
When it comes to philosophies there are so many interpretations that drift over space, time, and individuals. Almost all have interpretations or ideas that aren't bad and ones that are.
Such a beautiful way to say nothing
-
I'll begin by confessing that I also tend to apply philosophies situationally, but I'd be curious how you'd respond to the criticism that such an approach sort of gives away the game that philosophical applications are all post hoc rationalizations for our existing, non-rational preferences. I've found that to be the strongest criticism of such an approach.
I feel that post hoc reasoning is not a flaw. It helps build a coherent moral framework. To the hammer, everything is a nail. Why limit the philosophical tools pre or post any need i guess
-
This post did not contain any content.
I'm unfamiliar with Absurdism.
When I first encountered Stoicism, I realized that I already was a Stoic, I just didn't know the name. I continue to be one, but don't feel bound to follow the dictates of the ancient Stoics, who often showed their own biases especially with regards to gender. I will take wisdom and virtue where I find it, though.
One thing that frustrates me about a lot of contemporary Stoic discourse is the predominance of Dualism, especially body / mind dualism, which is philosophically bankrupt. I am not my brain and have no more control over it than any other part of my body.
Another is the tendency to treat Stoicism like it's a kind of Rationalism; I'm deep in the Virtue Ethics groove and distrustful of all Consequentialists, including Rationalists: Wishful thinking has no place in Stoicism.
So to say "I am a Stoic" remains fraught, as so many take a different meaning from it then I do, and indeed different from each other. But a Stoic I remain, unable to change that about the world and so adapting to it instead.
-
This post did not contain any content.
It is trendy as youtube topic but pop analysis is kinda wack...
read the source literature for yourself.
