Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:00:13 — 55.2MB)
More on The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius (180 CE) and Ryan's The Daily Stoic
We talk Stoicism as "pre-mourning," love of fate even with trauma, are Stoics committed to a divine plan, Stoic political ethics, ethical models for emulation, and the idea of overwriting your brain with the Stoic operating system.
Hear part 1 first, or get the full, unbroken Citizen Edition, as well as the follow-up discussion. Please support PEL!
End song: "Any Way the Wind Blows" by MIR; listen to Mark talk to Asif Illyas on Nakedly Examined Music #33.
Help us plan our 10th Anniversary show by taking our planning survey.
Marcus Aurelius is clone of The Queen Drama Serial aired in South Africa or that Sa Soap is clone of Marcus Aurelius
I find dylan’s line of thinking misguided and naive. how can you pick and choose–isolate certain encounters that shape a person and affirm them with stoicism while other encounters you say, “no fair. I’d be flourishing in unknown ways if it weren’t for THOSE obstacles.”
this is resentment and betrays a deficiency in affirmation. Nietzsche didn’t write his philosophy of affirmation because he thought it was congenial, “maybe it will be picked up as a best seller for self-help aficionados.” He saw that it would have to be necessary and good to potentially affirm even the most harshest suffering in order to reconcile oneself with the obstacles one was facing… You know what I think the problem is. its as though you only half heartedly read a philosopher and you secretly hope that maybe there is something else around the corner.
how can you apply the ethos of being worthy to what happens to you to only certain “segments” of what happens? as if there were some benevolent guardian waiting to step in and call time out to assess the various directions of opportunity still open to you barring this or that obstacle. the funny thing is that in a sense there is this kind of upshot to adequately addressing ones problems but only as a produced result of having reconciled oneself with the obstacle. there aren’t any seams for “woulda coulda shoulda” type vantage points.
and It is possible to change the world. revolutionary actions attest to this.
– Either ethics makes no sense at all, or this is what it means and has nothing else to say: not to be unworthy of what happens to us.
I actually agree with a lot of what this Ryan. I just have a really difficult time taking philosophy as a prescription for pain. I’m reminded of the book Confessions of Nat Turner and his inner monologues revealing what can maybe called Stoic pragmatism of excepting a brutal beating over being raped by his master and his subsequent transformation into anger that was so pure it took his spiritual life to a Transcendent level that once God reached out he would be ready to act. A stoic is an aesthetic attitude that I would say a lot of struggling people already have in spades.
I would say some cops shouldn’t be cops and are still cops because Judges reduced their domestic violence charge to a lesser charge. Stoics don’t really have answer for immoral privilege arbitrarily granted to what the moral concensus would say is unjust. I guess Stoicism is a safe Philosophy for the CEO because it’s politically on the side of individual power over collective power.
Perhaps read ‘The Antidote- Happiness for people who can’t stand positive thinking’ by Oliver Burkeman
There were some huffy opinions, even a bit of an attack on the guest (a tad unpleasant) but I guess we just face it stoically and shelve it with human behavior 🙂
Redpiller stoics
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/taking-the-red-pill/10452032
new online journal/podcast about these kinds of practices @
http://thesideview.co
Another great episode!
I have been listening to your podcasts, in order, for about 2 years now. It was actually your podcast that got me interested in Stoicism, and it was very early on. You mentioned, I believe in your first Eastern philosophy episode, the numerous similarities between Buddhism and Stoicism and how both could lead to flourishing. This got me to check out a book on each. Didn’t really get into Buddhism, but Stoicism, specifically Seneca’s letters, spoke to me immediately, and it would not be an exaggeration to say it changed my life.
I didn’t even know you guys had done Stoicism episodes until I naturally listened all the way up to the Epictetus episode. Then I skipped ahead to listen to the Seneca and Marcus Aurelius episode. It is comical to hear the people who first introduced me to Stoicism treat it so irreverently. But I don’t disagree; the more stoicism I’ve read, the more I’m realizing that I primarily like Seneca’s version of stoicism.
I wish I could listen to Mark and Seth’s “Part 3” of Marcus Aurelius (I am no longer a citizen). I find the description very intriguing, especially the part where Mark states that modern skeptics, who are likely to reject Stoic metaphysics, may then reject the entire philosophy. I consider myself a skeptic, and one of the big draws of stoicism for me (especially over Buddhism) is that it seemed consistent with skepticism. Specifically, there is a passage in Seneca letter 16:
“Perhaps someone will say: “How can philosophy help me, if Fate exists? Of what avail is philosophy, if God rules the universe? Of what avail is it, if Chance governs everything? For not only is it impossible to change things that are determined, but it is also impossible to plan beforehand against what is undetermined; either God has forestalled my plans, and decided what I am to do, or else Fortune gives no free play to my plans.” 5. Whether the truth, Lucilius, lies in one or in all of these views, we must be philosophers; whether Fate binds us down by an inexorable law, or whether God as arbiter of the universe has arranged everything, or whether Chance drives and tosses human affairs without method, philosophy ought to be our defence”
Here Seneca is open to a metaphysical determinism or the complete opposite of that, yet he still believes Stoicism to be useful. I read this passage and much of Seneca as saying basically, “We can’t know very much, but we might as well try and stay positive since it beats staying negative. And we can’t control very much, so we might as well focus our efforts on what we can control and do our best to make peace with what we can’t.” I personally find this to be extremely helpful and consistent with both skepticism and various dogmas.
If any of the PEL staff have read this far, I have one more quick unrelated piece of feedback for you: I heard on one of those episode where you reflect back on the podcast that you have learned to take caution when tackling philosophers/pseudo-philosophers that have a cult following (e.g. Ayn Rand, Pirsig, Stoics). I say throw caution to the wind! Sure, your irreverence will make some non-PEL fans mad, and they may have a nasty comment or rating or two, but ultimately your true fans will appreciate it regardless and you will gain visibility. Your episode taking a giant crap on Sam Harris was one of my favorites. There is no such thing as bad publicity!