my interpitation of stoicism is that you need to be controlled by logic and ethics. what we call emotions i sometimes call sicknesses. christianity is not at all different from stoicism. any philosophy based on learning to master your faults, while earning nothing more than self awareness is essentially stoicism. i believe yeshua ben yusef was a stoic, and he was bringing logic and self awareness to communities. he was killed for causing a rift and the rest is an engineered a myth.
Why stoicism is not more prevalent in the modern world?? Ever heard of Christianity? Biblical Christian ethic is very close to the philosophy of the cynics. You may say that Christians "took" it from the cynics but it is simply that the cynics (and their later incarnation as "stoics") were the closest to moral truth of all the hellenistic systems of philosophy. Stoicism is now irrelevant as the greatest truths within stoicism can be found within the Gospel of Christ.
I've heard it somewhere else that Christianity has pushed Stoicism aside in the West. Indeed, most Christians (and atheists) of today believe that they have a LOT of control over their lives...
If physicalism should be true, ALL things are beyond our control. Hence it seems to me that it's easier to embrace a stoic mindset if you believe that matter is all there is. Then it's quite easy. Then you can accept everything as destiny. Beautiful. Of course, then you MUST accept death as well.
@Winrockful There certainly are a lot of "Christians" (false Christians really) who believe they are in control and who believe in absolute free will, but Christians who really believe in the Bible are die-hard determinists (not fatalists but determinists nonetheless). Ever heard of Calvinism? In fact, the wars of Christianity were fought over this very concept. Martin Luther was pretty close to the truth with his "De Servo Arbitrio", of course we Christians wrap it up in Biblical language.
@WorshipInTruth Yes, I have heard of Calvinism. The biggest problem is that it involves an unjust God. This is probably why many Christians (false or not) endorse free will, in order to avoid the conclusion that God punishes the innocent (and of course so they can pat themselves on the back for their accomplishments). I think for Christians who are in the no-free-will-camp, Meister Eckhart is a better choice than John Calvin or Martin Luther.
@Winrockful The God of the Bible is "unjust"? I will disagree with that wholeheartedly, what is unjust is a God who is not strong to save his elect and would allow them to fall into the pits of hell. God does not punish the innocent, first of all, none are innocent all fall short and are born unto sin, it is God who makes certain individuals innocent at all in the first place through the shed blood of his Son.
@Winrockful You should know that it was Martin Luther who first published Eckharts treatises and even named the manuscripts, if it wasn't for Luther nobody would even have ever heard of Eckhart past the small group of 14th century franciscan monks who tried to have Echkart charged with heresy by the inquisition. Luther was quite favorable towards Eckhart. Calvin, on the other hand, wasn't as Eckhart was not the strict determinist which you have tried to paint him to be.
@Winrockful I do not mind Eckhart too much, I was able to read much of his work until I found some obvious heresies, but the heresies were there and they were blatant, he was not even close to having the theological mind of Calvin. I tell you to beware the pietists, it is crass mysticism not fully in line with orthodox Biblical Christianity. If you listen to me long enough you will know that I make a good claim that "pietism" was an attempt by the illuministic forces to corrupt Protestantism.
@WorshipInTruth Metaphysics and the meaning(lessness) of life or the mind-body problem are topics too few people are interested in... Would discuss more with you if I had the time. I still think Calvin's God is unjust: Sinners have no control over their sinning. They can't help it, so they can't be blamed. It's quite simple.
Mysticism makes a lot of sense to me. Ask yourself what you can be ABSOLUTELY certain about. It is this: Experiencing is happening. Strictly speaking, not even that.
@Winrockful If you read Calvins ideology you realize that just because God is sovereign over his creation and in control it doesn't disclude humanity from guilt, sin does not proceed from God, it is God who defeats the power of sin over his elect, you can say it is unjust that he does't just save EVERYBODY but under what basis is that unjust? After all, it is the Creator which ultimately decides what is just and what isnt.
@Winrockful "Mysticism makes a lot of sense to me. Ask yourself what you can be ABSOLUTELY certain about. It is this: Experiencing is happening. Strictly speaking, not even that.".... that statement you made isnt really about "mysticism" seems to me that you are talking about agnosticism, I myself am a bit of a skeptical agnosicism, humans perception is extremely limited, we cannot really be sure about anything, but we take stuff and base our understanding of the world upon FAITH, everybody does
@WorshipInTruth Of course we use faith, and hopefully in order to believe that which is most reasonable rather than most appealing. And since we know that we don't know, we should avoid dogmaticism.
I think what I said is in fact related to mysticism, since mysticism is about knowledge through direct experience, which is the alternative to reasoned-out knowledge. Having any experience is always 100% certain while you have it. Memory and reason are not. We still need them, of course.
haha I guess, my only standpoint is please don't pay someone who thinks they know about stoicism to teach you anything about it. We have extreme limited knowledge of the ideals of these people, so it's best left studied by yourself. I'm not saying you're one of the people who pay for that, but this is the only reason I am kind of against people calling themselves stoics.
Epictetus got his lessons from actual stoic sages and philosophers, today we only have 3 legit books about the subject. I kind of find it insulting for any modern man to claim the title of stoic. We only have an outline of this subject, nothing deeper.
death needs to be conquered with technology. You lost me with the whole accept death part. Don't go quietly into the light! lol That's my view point anyway.
I think Stoicism became the dominant cult because i xian leaders killed philosophers (Hypatia is one who comes to mind), tore down temples, closed the Academy, outlawed the teaching of philosophy, and forced nonbelievers to pretend they were on the faith train. Stoicism never had a chance and neither did Epicureanism, Platonism, or the Academics.
We can never be actual stoics, there is no place to start because we have very little writings from any stoic philosopher. None of you are stoics. I tried following the stoic philosophy but there is no point because there just aren't enough writings, none of us have any idea what they actually practised. Sorry, I just figured i'd save someone's time.
what happen to stoicism is that emperor justinian banned it from the roman empire in 529AD. you know since christianity was the state religion, he didnt like the questioning and socratic dialogue that the stoics practiced.
Maybe someday someone will transfer their cognition into a super computer Ray Kurtzweil mentions in the book "The age of The Spiritual Machines" The technology of our age may be to primitive to achieve this anytime soon? The movie Zardoz. Could be that aliens have already done that....
Classical stoicism encouraged more self control, more autonomy, it didn't forbid emotion but taught men not to be controlled by them. Absent of excess baggage stoicism easily facilitates science and reason, because it facilitates thinking clearly and being able to detach from instincts and impulses. Unfortunately Stoicism has never been as popular in hedonism, and a base element of hedonism is extremely well entrenched into much of our modern society.
Stoicism should not become an excuse for luddism, if death could be conquered then people would embrace death willingly rather than having it forced upon them by the circumstances of natural frailty, few people would choose to maintain an indefinite existence.
In the modern age with the standard of living being as high as it is for "so many of us", the need gravitate towards Stoicism is very low. Most people put off any thought of death or hardship untill they actually face it and by then it's too late. Their lack of philisophical preperation leaves them to endure the full "culture-shock of... reality and life.
@rumit99 Each human life does, in fact, have a special significance. At least, we're biologically programmed to believe so. In addiction therapy, addicts learn about BLAST; an acronym for the triggers that set off addictive behaviors in the brain. "A" stands for being angry. "S" stands for being stressed. "T" stands for being tired. These make perfect sense, But, the "B" stands for boredom and the "L" stands for lonliness. People need a mission and other, quality people to be spend time with.
@TenderTrap86 Human life is no more significant than that of an ant. In fact every living and non-living thing in this world is equally significant. Human beings are not special. We may be on top of the food chain, but that does not mean we are better or chosen by a god. Religion is basically an ego defense mechanism. Because the down side of having intelligence and the ability to think abstractly is that we are inherently fearful and anxious of what the future holds.Religion helps us cope.
@rumit99 - "Human life is no more significant than that of an ant." - Then, I hope you don't get angry when people try to squash you./// - "We may be on top of the food chain"- Would you say that to the bear's face?/// - "the ability to think abstractly is that we are inherently fearful and anxious" - Really? Chipmucks and squirrels looked pretty neurotic, to me./// - "Religion helps us cope." - I'd hardly qualify Dark Age theology of hellfire and brimstone as a relaxing, therapuetic technique.
@TenderTrap86 Thanks for pointing out apparent errors in my reply. Although I was hoping that you would look past the pure semantics and focus on the conceptual part of my argument. If you are truly a seeker of the truth try to give up prejudices and small trivial notions and try to cultivate a more open and receptive mind. Good Luck!
@rumit99 Semantics are important. If we can't say what we mean, we can't mean what we say. We're not the top of the food chain and human beings are more significant than ants. Also, animals in the wild have anxiety. If a wild animal doesn't have a survival mechanism how does it keep living? Some anxiety is natural, and even necessary, for survival. -"try to give up prejudices and small trivial notions and try to cultivate a more open and receptive mind"- Good luck deflating that ego of yours.
@TenderTrap86 I may have injured your ego, by saying that human beings are no more significant than ants. In the grand scheme of things, no one thing is more important than anything else.Think of it as pieces in a jigsaw puzzle. Human beings, ants, rocks, trees and everything else on this planet are just pieces of one giant jigsaw puzzle that we call the universe. Human ego, prevents us from seeing this. We invent religion to justify our grandiose self. "God created the heavens and earth for us"
@rumit99 You may have injured my ego? Wouldn't a Stoic say that only I can do that? And now tell me that I'm the egotistical one./// The rest of the comment is nothing more than affirmation with no explanation: in a nutshell, "Humans are no more significant than ants because it's true." Wouldn't it be more egotistical to deny the existence of God? You can be your own god.
@TenderTrap86 i believe semantics are important too. however, i also believe one shouldn't get caught up in semantics if they understood the point that was being made. dont venture off a topic just to get into a discussion of semantics just for the sake of semantics. words are for communicating messages. if the message was received properly, then case closed. how it was delivered is irrelevant at that point.
Now I don't know much about stoicism but I think it is applied to technological projects too, specially in serious projects where you deal with risk management at the inception phase. There are many risks that might affect the project in some negative and indirect way. But you generally identify those risks and you learn to live with them. From a consumer standpoint the risk is always there that your connection might drop, etc.. There is lots of uncertainty, it's ones expectation that varies.
If one acts not in accordance to one's emotions but in accordance to what Reality demands from us, will such an Act be authentic only in respect to the external Situation but not to the Internal Emotional State?
Not just death but as you mentioned, all those little things that are utterly out of our control. There seems to be a trained forgetfulness of all those others that we depend on for our day to day existence.
hmmm... I thought the term neo stoicism was used for a rehash of the old stoicism but in the context of christianity. I'm guessing you mean the original stoicism, I probably should watch the original video. :)
interesting video. i wonder though if Christianity and stoicism are as much at odds as you say. Christians are encouraged to bear temporary burdens gracefully in many places in the Bible, and delayed gratification is central to the Gospel. also, all Christian denominations (regardless of stance on free agency) teach that God - not man - is in control, and man should not be concerned about that which he has no control over.
perhaps i have too narrow a view of Stoicism though... thoughts on this?
@Professoranton The stoics certainly did believe in an afterlife, they didn't however have a clear conception of the afterlife, stoicism is a philosophy and not a religion. Different philosophers and thinkers who have been considered "stoics" have had differening conceptions of the afterlife, to assume that denial of the afterlife is somehow a tenent of stoicism is a fallacy. Stoicism is certainly not athiestic or materialist, it is not fully "theistic" either, it sways more towards agnosticism.
@Professoranton To confuse chronology with christian theology taking from the stoics is lazy thinking. because event B happened after A doesn't logically mean that A caused, or influenced B. And to make your statement worse, the book of Job precedes stoic philosophy, which is one of the fullest accounts of a stoic life in suffering. Also it is quite uncertain whether stoics believed in an afterlife or even whether this would change their belief as to conduct. PerennialLucidity has a valid point
mutual destruction is tragic though educational towards our capacity as humans...so death be both a gift and a dept, to this day payed and received by all men
One of the simbolic sayings of the latin stoics printed in some braziers and stoic schools was the frase 'NO FEAR NO HOPE'. Those two affections are of prime order without which christianity could never have existed and atracted millions of people. Hope in an after life for ex. and fear of hell so commom in the middle ages.Nowadays christians and other religions are not afraid of hell anymore but religion is always very cunning and skillful finding new fears and hopes which stoicism never had.
i liked what u said about the roman empire and christianity but global warming isnt gonna happen!!!! hahahaha i cant believe you believe in it!!!! :(:(:(:(:(:(:( sad...
Someone left a comment on my video "No More Gods on this Earth" after I cut out all the images of dead bodies to satisfy youtube's censorship saying that "the scars of youtube's censorship was like religion's denial of death and youtube had denied me the images of death."
/watch?v=XEwkeH2XiTQ
By the time we conquer death, mankind will be a different species - more Borg like.
my interpitation of stoicism is that you need to be controlled by logic and ethics. what we call emotions i sometimes call sicknesses. christianity is not at all different from stoicism. any philosophy based on learning to master your faults, while earning nothing more than self awareness is essentially stoicism. i believe yeshua ben yusef was a stoic, and he was bringing logic and self awareness to communities. he was killed for causing a rift and the rest is an engineered a myth.
mikeyfeist 2 weeks ago
You should do a video about Neo-Epicureanism, Campaigner Socialists and the Multi-Cult!
MrWatchdawg77 2 months ago
Why stoicism is not more prevalent in the modern world?? Ever heard of Christianity? Biblical Christian ethic is very close to the philosophy of the cynics. You may say that Christians "took" it from the cynics but it is simply that the cynics (and their later incarnation as "stoics") were the closest to moral truth of all the hellenistic systems of philosophy. Stoicism is now irrelevant as the greatest truths within stoicism can be found within the Gospel of Christ.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
I've heard it somewhere else that Christianity has pushed Stoicism aside in the West. Indeed, most Christians (and atheists) of today believe that they have a LOT of control over their lives...
If physicalism should be true, ALL things are beyond our control. Hence it seems to me that it's easier to embrace a stoic mindset if you believe that matter is all there is. Then it's quite easy. Then you can accept everything as destiny. Beautiful. Of course, then you MUST accept death as well.
Winrockful 4 months ago
@Winrockful There certainly are a lot of "Christians" (false Christians really) who believe they are in control and who believe in absolute free will, but Christians who really believe in the Bible are die-hard determinists (not fatalists but determinists nonetheless). Ever heard of Calvinism? In fact, the wars of Christianity were fought over this very concept. Martin Luther was pretty close to the truth with his "De Servo Arbitrio", of course we Christians wrap it up in Biblical language.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth Yes, I have heard of Calvinism. The biggest problem is that it involves an unjust God. This is probably why many Christians (false or not) endorse free will, in order to avoid the conclusion that God punishes the innocent (and of course so they can pat themselves on the back for their accomplishments). I think for Christians who are in the no-free-will-camp, Meister Eckhart is a better choice than John Calvin or Martin Luther.
Winrockful 3 months ago
@Winrockful The God of the Bible is "unjust"? I will disagree with that wholeheartedly, what is unjust is a God who is not strong to save his elect and would allow them to fall into the pits of hell. God does not punish the innocent, first of all, none are innocent all fall short and are born unto sin, it is God who makes certain individuals innocent at all in the first place through the shed blood of his Son.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@Winrockful You should know that it was Martin Luther who first published Eckharts treatises and even named the manuscripts, if it wasn't for Luther nobody would even have ever heard of Eckhart past the small group of 14th century franciscan monks who tried to have Echkart charged with heresy by the inquisition. Luther was quite favorable towards Eckhart. Calvin, on the other hand, wasn't as Eckhart was not the strict determinist which you have tried to paint him to be.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@Winrockful I do not mind Eckhart too much, I was able to read much of his work until I found some obvious heresies, but the heresies were there and they were blatant, he was not even close to having the theological mind of Calvin. I tell you to beware the pietists, it is crass mysticism not fully in line with orthodox Biblical Christianity. If you listen to me long enough you will know that I make a good claim that "pietism" was an attempt by the illuministic forces to corrupt Protestantism.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth Metaphysics and the meaning(lessness) of life or the mind-body problem are topics too few people are interested in... Would discuss more with you if I had the time. I still think Calvin's God is unjust: Sinners have no control over their sinning. They can't help it, so they can't be blamed. It's quite simple.
Mysticism makes a lot of sense to me. Ask yourself what you can be ABSOLUTELY certain about. It is this: Experiencing is happening. Strictly speaking, not even that.
Winrockful 3 months ago
@Winrockful If you read Calvins ideology you realize that just because God is sovereign over his creation and in control it doesn't disclude humanity from guilt, sin does not proceed from God, it is God who defeats the power of sin over his elect, you can say it is unjust that he does't just save EVERYBODY but under what basis is that unjust? After all, it is the Creator which ultimately decides what is just and what isnt.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@Winrockful "Mysticism makes a lot of sense to me. Ask yourself what you can be ABSOLUTELY certain about. It is this: Experiencing is happening. Strictly speaking, not even that.".... that statement you made isnt really about "mysticism" seems to me that you are talking about agnosticism, I myself am a bit of a skeptical agnosicism, humans perception is extremely limited, we cannot really be sure about anything, but we take stuff and base our understanding of the world upon FAITH, everybody does
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth Of course we use faith, and hopefully in order to believe that which is most reasonable rather than most appealing. And since we know that we don't know, we should avoid dogmaticism.
I think what I said is in fact related to mysticism, since mysticism is about knowledge through direct experience, which is the alternative to reasoned-out knowledge. Having any experience is always 100% certain while you have it. Memory and reason are not. We still need them, of course.
Winrockful 3 months ago
@LittleMegha
I agree, it just needs to be realized that we probably only know about 3/10 of thier actual beliefs.
TheKenTerry 6 months ago
@LittleMegha
haha I guess, my only standpoint is please don't pay someone who thinks they know about stoicism to teach you anything about it. We have extreme limited knowledge of the ideals of these people, so it's best left studied by yourself. I'm not saying you're one of the people who pay for that, but this is the only reason I am kind of against people calling themselves stoics.
TheKenTerry 6 months ago
@LittleMegha
Epictetus got his lessons from actual stoic sages and philosophers, today we only have 3 legit books about the subject. I kind of find it insulting for any modern man to claim the title of stoic. We only have an outline of this subject, nothing deeper.
TheKenTerry 6 months ago
@Omnicron777
Do you really think our minds are determined.. I don't think everyone would agree with you on that one so it's not necessarily fallacious
Einz2 6 months ago
Also death is only a gift to those who are near death and in horrible pain. We shouldn't accept it if it can be "cured".
atheelogos 7 months ago
death needs to be conquered with technology. You lost me with the whole accept death part. Don't go quietly into the light! lol That's my view point anyway.
atheelogos 7 months ago
So if your house was on fire. I'd just be a happy Stoicist and watch it burn down. Sure if thats what you want...
mattmoreira252 7 months ago
I think Stoicism became the dominant cult because i xian leaders killed philosophers (Hypatia is one who comes to mind), tore down temples, closed the Academy, outlawed the teaching of philosophy, and forced nonbelievers to pretend they were on the faith train. Stoicism never had a chance and neither did Epicureanism, Platonism, or the Academics.
jungefrau 9 months ago
I agree !! You're awesome : )
laraskye 10 months ago
We can never be actual stoics, there is no place to start because we have very little writings from any stoic philosopher. None of you are stoics. I tried following the stoic philosophy but there is no point because there just aren't enough writings, none of us have any idea what they actually practised. Sorry, I just figured i'd save someone's time.
TheKenTerry 10 months ago
what happen to stoicism is that emperor justinian banned it from the roman empire in 529AD. you know since christianity was the state religion, he didnt like the questioning and socratic dialogue that the stoics practiced.
mmantech 1 year ago
"A guide to the good life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy" by William B Irvine - a must-read for any stoic-to-be
ostrogotu 1 year ago 6
Great and insightful response.
meinevvelten 1 year ago
there's talk about bringing back stoicism to deal with PTSD in soldiers who got exposed to the fact that people die, and painfully
and otherwise lose their faith
noobler9 1 year ago
Maybe someday someone will transfer their cognition into a super computer Ray Kurtzweil mentions in the book "The age of The Spiritual Machines" The technology of our age may be to primitive to achieve this anytime soon? The movie Zardoz. Could be that aliens have already done that....
see wikipedia "Mind uploading"
pgm98387 1 year ago
@pgm98387 you should watch ghost in the shell(anime), because that mind uploading is a huger element in the show
centralbeeee 1 year ago
@pgm98387 Where Are The BORG When You Need Them. Norman Coordinate!
rgaleny 1 year ago
scribd (dot) com / nb812
DreamsofMajesty 1 year ago
Classical stoicism encouraged more self control, more autonomy, it didn't forbid emotion but taught men not to be controlled by them. Absent of excess baggage stoicism easily facilitates science and reason, because it facilitates thinking clearly and being able to detach from instincts and impulses. Unfortunately Stoicism has never been as popular in hedonism, and a base element of hedonism is extremely well entrenched into much of our modern society.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
Stoicism should not become an excuse for luddism, if death could be conquered then people would embrace death willingly rather than having it forced upon them by the circumstances of natural frailty, few people would choose to maintain an indefinite existence.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
Your mother is a neo-stoic.lol couldn't help my self
greenghost2008 1 year ago
In the modern age with the standard of living being as high as it is for "so many of us", the need gravitate towards Stoicism is very low. Most people put off any thought of death or hardship untill they actually face it and by then it's too late. Their lack of philisophical preperation leaves them to endure the full "culture-shock of... reality and life.
ReloadHKtactical 1 year ago
scratch that. i found it
TheWillIamLee87 1 year ago
can u post the link to the video that this is a response to?
TheWillIamLee87 1 year ago
Im a aurelius stoic, so hey. also the title of the vid is redundant lol
Magiclukie 1 year ago
Christianity along with other Abrahamic religions are popular to because they play on the human ego.
Human beings cannot accept the fact that they are not special in this world. We all want to feel that we are special
That our lives have some "special" significance. So we create a special relationship with a "god". That makes us feel special.
rumit99 1 year ago
@rumit99 Each human life does, in fact, have a special significance. At least, we're biologically programmed to believe so. In addiction therapy, addicts learn about BLAST; an acronym for the triggers that set off addictive behaviors in the brain. "A" stands for being angry. "S" stands for being stressed. "T" stands for being tired. These make perfect sense, But, the "B" stands for boredom and the "L" stands for lonliness. People need a mission and other, quality people to be spend time with.
TenderTrap86 1 year ago
@TenderTrap86 Human life is no more significant than that of an ant. In fact every living and non-living thing in this world is equally significant. Human beings are not special. We may be on top of the food chain, but that does not mean we are better or chosen by a god. Religion is basically an ego defense mechanism. Because the down side of having intelligence and the ability to think abstractly is that we are inherently fearful and anxious of what the future holds.Religion helps us cope.
rumit99 1 year ago
@rumit99 - "Human life is no more significant than that of an ant." - Then, I hope you don't get angry when people try to squash you./// - "We may be on top of the food chain"- Would you say that to the bear's face?/// - "the ability to think abstractly is that we are inherently fearful and anxious" - Really? Chipmucks and squirrels looked pretty neurotic, to me./// - "Religion helps us cope." - I'd hardly qualify Dark Age theology of hellfire and brimstone as a relaxing, therapuetic technique.
TenderTrap86 1 year ago
@TenderTrap86 Thanks for pointing out apparent errors in my reply. Although I was hoping that you would look past the pure semantics and focus on the conceptual part of my argument. If you are truly a seeker of the truth try to give up prejudices and small trivial notions and try to cultivate a more open and receptive mind. Good Luck!
rumit99 1 year ago
@rumit99 Semantics are important. If we can't say what we mean, we can't mean what we say. We're not the top of the food chain and human beings are more significant than ants. Also, animals in the wild have anxiety. If a wild animal doesn't have a survival mechanism how does it keep living? Some anxiety is natural, and even necessary, for survival. -"try to give up prejudices and small trivial notions and try to cultivate a more open and receptive mind"- Good luck deflating that ego of yours.
TenderTrap86 1 year ago
@TenderTrap86 I may have injured your ego, by saying that human beings are no more significant than ants. In the grand scheme of things, no one thing is more important than anything else.Think of it as pieces in a jigsaw puzzle. Human beings, ants, rocks, trees and everything else on this planet are just pieces of one giant jigsaw puzzle that we call the universe. Human ego, prevents us from seeing this. We invent religion to justify our grandiose self. "God created the heavens and earth for us"
rumit99 1 year ago
@rumit99 You may have injured my ego? Wouldn't a Stoic say that only I can do that? And now tell me that I'm the egotistical one./// The rest of the comment is nothing more than affirmation with no explanation: in a nutshell, "Humans are no more significant than ants because it's true." Wouldn't it be more egotistical to deny the existence of God? You can be your own god.
TenderTrap86 1 year ago
@TenderTrap86 i believe semantics are important too. however, i also believe one shouldn't get caught up in semantics if they understood the point that was being made. dont venture off a topic just to get into a discussion of semantics just for the sake of semantics. words are for communicating messages. if the message was received properly, then case closed. how it was delivered is irrelevant at that point.
jfuya2000 1 year ago
Now I don't know much about stoicism but I think it is applied to technological projects too, specially in serious projects where you deal with risk management at the inception phase. There are many risks that might affect the project in some negative and indirect way. But you generally identify those risks and you learn to live with them. From a consumer standpoint the risk is always there that your connection might drop, etc.. There is lots of uncertainty, it's ones expectation that varies.
SuperHiDef99 2 years ago
If one acts not in accordance to one's emotions but in accordance to what Reality demands from us, will such an Act be authentic only in respect to the external Situation but not to the Internal Emotional State?
anujdasgupta 2 years ago
Not just death but as you mentioned, all those little things that are utterly out of our control. There seems to be a trained forgetfulness of all those others that we depend on for our day to day existence.
dowdfather 2 years ago
hmmm... I thought the term neo stoicism was used for a rehash of the old stoicism but in the context of christianity. I'm guessing you mean the original stoicism, I probably should watch the original video. :)
dismutased 2 years ago
interesting video. i wonder though if Christianity and stoicism are as much at odds as you say. Christians are encouraged to bear temporary burdens gracefully in many places in the Bible, and delayed gratification is central to the Gospel. also, all Christian denominations (regardless of stance on free agency) teach that God - not man - is in control, and man should not be concerned about that which he has no control over.
perhaps i have too narrow a view of Stoicism though... thoughts on this?
PerennialLucidity 2 years ago
I would give you an earful of how much of the good stuff Christians took from the stoics. The difference is belief in an afterlife.
Professoranton 2 years ago 13
Would you mind doing a video on that? I've long wanted to take a closer look at it, particularly Paul's stuff.
smellincoffee 2 years ago
@Professoranton And a rejection on worldly politics.
rgaleny 1 year ago
@Professoranton and a rejection of worldly politics. only the kingdom of heaven matters. the earthly one is too unjust.
rgaleny 1 year ago
@Professoranton The stoics certainly did believe in an afterlife, they didn't however have a clear conception of the afterlife, stoicism is a philosophy and not a religion. Different philosophers and thinkers who have been considered "stoics" have had differening conceptions of the afterlife, to assume that denial of the afterlife is somehow a tenent of stoicism is a fallacy. Stoicism is certainly not athiestic or materialist, it is not fully "theistic" either, it sways more towards agnosticism.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@Professoranton To confuse chronology with christian theology taking from the stoics is lazy thinking. because event B happened after A doesn't logically mean that A caused, or influenced B. And to make your statement worse, the book of Job precedes stoic philosophy, which is one of the fullest accounts of a stoic life in suffering. Also it is quite uncertain whether stoics believed in an afterlife or even whether this would change their belief as to conduct. PerennialLucidity has a valid point
rmasso38 1 month ago
mutual destruction is tragic though educational towards our capacity as humans...so death be both a gift and a dept, to this day payed and received by all men
browncup01 1 year ago
One of the simbolic sayings of the latin stoics printed in some braziers and stoic schools was the frase 'NO FEAR NO HOPE'. Those two affections are of prime order without which christianity could never have existed and atracted millions of people. Hope in an after life for ex. and fear of hell so commom in the middle ages.Nowadays christians and other religions are not afraid of hell anymore but religion is always very cunning and skillful finding new fears and hopes which stoicism never had.
dionisio454 1 year ago
@dionisio454 life is just a bowl of cherries. So, live and laugh at it all.
rgaleny 1 year ago
i liked what u said about the roman empire and christianity but global warming isnt gonna happen!!!! hahahaha i cant believe you believe in it!!!! :(:(:(:(:(:(:( sad...
freedominsomalia 2 years ago
Aubrey DeGrey says death is an engineering problem.
Mjhavok 2 years ago
Someone left a comment on my video "No More Gods on this Earth" after I cut out all the images of dead bodies to satisfy youtube's censorship saying that "the scars of youtube's censorship was like religion's denial of death and youtube had denied me the images of death."
/watch?v=XEwkeH2XiTQ
By the time we conquer death, mankind will be a different species - more Borg like.
zarkoff45 2 years ago
I'm sold.
Newsish 2 years ago 3