What is your opinion about adsurdism and stoicism?
-
wrote last edited by [email protected]This post did not contain any content.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I think they both have a time and a place.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Whatever doesn't kill me makes me contemplate my meaningless place in the irrational universe.
-
I think they both have a time and a place.
I like my philosophy flexible
-
This post did not contain any content.
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).
-
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).
I am sorry about your loss.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Absurdism is cool, stoicism is something that can get unhealthy pretty quickly. From a pure self-help perspective existentialism is a better philosophy imo
-
I like my philosophy flexible
wrote last edited by [email protected]Meta-utilitarianism? Apply the most useful philosophy to each problem separately?
-
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 âgod did it so trust in the planâ 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 donât 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!
