Agnostic.com

5 3

Stoicism. A friend claims he is a stoic. To him, that means that the only thing he worries about is what he can control - the effort he gives, the moral courage he has, the way he conducts himself - and not outcomes. He pays no attention to outcomes.
Is this a pragmatically workable way to live life in this day in age in America? Looking for supportive arguments and critiques.

jjbelle 5 Oct 31
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

5 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

I'm pretty ruthless about not being attached to what isn't actionable. Or as my wife rhetorically asks, "to what end?" If you keep realistic goals in mind, it saves you a lot of thrashing around.

I think though that your friend is kidding himself and you if he literally claims to pay NO attention to outcomes. Even Buddhists don't claim to have no preferences, merely not to be attached to them. To allow life to be as it is, to unfold as it presents, is not to avoid exerting any effort in the direction of preferences, hopes, dreams or aspirations. It is just not to have your equanimity dependent on the present achievement of such things.

I don't know what the present day in America has to do with whether this is practical or workable. What was different in the "good old days" or what is different today, in, say, Luxembourg or Liechtenstein that it would be workable there but not in 'Murica? Regardless of the reason, in what ways do you think its might not be "workable"?

0

I always thought being stoic meant viewing the world with little or no emotion... Is this incorrect?

Yes, it's incorrect. Practiced stoicism might result in less emotional lability and in more rational decision-making, and I suppose that could seem Spock-like to some people. That's why we say half-admiringly that someone who is calm in a situation where most people would be expected to be upset, is "stoic". But that's just a random adjective, not the meaning of the philosophy of stoicism.

@mordant that makes sense, thank you. I suppose it's like the chicken and egg... Got it backwards...

0

Well...it may keep him from being depressed and frustrated with life, society, etc., so in that regards if it's working for him, then yea, I guess it works.

On the other side, it would be really easy to ignore that as a group we can typically accomplish more, or there are things we continually fail at (either solo or together) that should be a goal we continually reached for until it is acquired. I mean if we were flippant on outcomes, civil rights in the 60's may never have been achieved.

0

Have him read Julius Caesar by Shakespeare and look up the definition of stoic as used by Brutus.

1

That makes sense to me, in general. My only modification might be, rather than to pay no attention to outcomes, I might say don't let outcomes ruin your day. It might be useful to pay enough attention to at least know what the outcome was. I don't see any benefit in suffering over what's beyond my control.
Seems to me, if happiness is available independent of material circumstances, it would be a more desirable happiness than one that was dependent.

skado Level 9 Oct 31, 2018
Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:213019
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.