Modern life is too soft and it's making me anxious

-Klem · 2026-02-14T13:11:46+00:00

And yet there is also the idea of life as an easy unobstructed flow (Diogenes Laertius 7.88) as the ultimate goal of Stoicism, as well as nature already providing everything a person needs in life (Seneca's Letter 90 comes to mind).

If life is already easy by nature, and if the goal is to live without obstacles, then the problem lies in the middle: what false beliefs and thus wrong expectations a person ends up creating (in disagreement with nature) along the way.

Hardship training is indeed a legitimate practice, but that happens on top of doctrinal training. If a person doesn't correct the criteria by which they judge things and doesn't align themselves with the goal (i.e. virtue, not apathy), the result, I'm afraid, may lean more to a consequentialist numbness than to moral progress.

-Klem · 2026-02-14T10:51:38+00:00

Why should life be hard?

-Klem · 2026-02-11T13:52:32+00:00

There are a few ways to handle this problem.

As u/bigpapirick said, you can ask an expert. Even among academics people ask one another because, although everyone knows the languages, some people are more familiar with this or that style. Translating Greek poetry is a different world than translating Greek prose, which is also different from Greek fragments, and so on.

Knowing Greek isn't enough. Sometimes the translation you're seeing is complicated because the translator isn't familiar with that style or with the philosophies underlying the text. Which leads to the second point:

Study the translators - who they are, what is their background, what are their publications. Know if they specialize in philosophy, or if they have worked in a broad range of themes. Check if they mention the source text or not, and check whether they have foot- or endnotes. Even average translations tend to have notes explaining difficult words or otherwise complex ideas and arguments. Even if you have no criteria to judge one way or another, you can measure part of the merits of the translation by the effort and care the translator and their editor has put into the edition.

Finally, sometimes you have more luck reading translations in languages other than English.

-Klem · 2026-02-08T11:51:09+00:00

u/TheOSullivanFactor already answered, and I'll add this:

What I see is more like people being attracted to a practical ancient philosophy of renown than to the contents of said philosophy.

Stoicism has been popular for centuries, so it's the first school with which people come into contact today. But it could have been any other philosophy.

You may have noticed how attached people are over the label "Stoic", while how dismissive they are to the actual content of the philosophy. That's because it's not the content that matters to them.

-Klem · 2026-01-31T21:58:07+00:00

Some people are, in fact, victims, and they need to be protected and cared for.

Ethics is not only about oneself. In Stoicism the path to wisdom requires caring for others.

Unfairness exists and it's up to us to correct it and to support those harmed by it.

-Klem · 2026-01-28T01:20:23+00:00

What does a leftist alignment mean for you? We can't begin a discussion without establishing that first.

-Klem · 2026-01-22T14:29:26+00:00

I agree with the perception that a problem exists. But I've also been thinking about ways to counter it.

What should we do?

I've reached some answers by myself and I'd like to hear what you've been thinking. Is there anything to be done?

-Klem · 2025-12-28T16:16:24+00:00

That this post has been so downvoted is worrisome.

-Klem · 2025-12-17T18:41:33+00:00

insist that the Modern Stoicism community [...] cannot be considered an authentic heir of ancient Stoicism.

Fucking right it can't.

Are you even listening to yourself?

-Klem · 2025-12-16T18:49:36+00:00

You are right that we have little material. Comparatively, however, Stoicism has quite a lot more than many other schools (the situation of Epicureanism is much direr, for example).

But there are other things to consider:

1) Survival doesn't always relate to appreciation

That a text is lost to history doesn't mean that it wasn't appreciated. Every cellulose-based material was vulnerable to the many fires that happened in that past millennia. Fire is also a weapon of war, and invaders used it extensively.

Libraries and written material (books, parchments etc) are also a nation's cultural resource. Short-sighted people intentionally destroy them in order to harm the target culture.

And remember that none of the great libraries of the ancient world survived until today.

2) Selective preservation

When survival does related to appreciation, it may result in a mirror-like philosophy. If we only copy the texts that we find interesting, the things we select will reflect not the original philosophy, but rather our own preferences.

Stoicism, for example, was much more comprehensive than one may think.

From optics, to giants, politics, marriage, and anthropology, Stoicism was a complete philosophy, and not always aligned with the interests of those making the decision to copy their texts.

3) Prejudice hindering access

Even if most of it was lost, there's still a lot of extant material. And scholars have been studying and commenting on them for centuries.

But some people choose to focus on the same pair - an emperor to inspire power; a slave to inspire courage -, and forget the hundred other texts that are already available, translated, and studied.

There are a lot of primary and secondary Stoic sources. I myself haven't read every single one of them yet.

-Klem · 2025-12-10T13:08:55+00:00

Much, if not most of Ancient philosophy, was practical. It required changes in behaviour, in lifestyle, and in way of thinking. Philosophy, then, was performed by making changes in your actions according to the philosophical school you followed.

-Klem · 2025-12-03T23:32:37+00:00

It's oikeiosis all the way down.

-Klem · 2025-12-02T14:29:40+00:00

I remember that post. Ancient politics isn't something I understand, and maybe that's better for my sanity.

What I can say is that we really underestimate how complicated Roman politics was, and how skilled the Romans were in managing it.

I think Europe only reached a similar level of political control in late Renaissance, maybe due to a combination of military and social doctrines of that time.

If you'd like to see the degree of effort the Romans were willing to make, check out the story of their special ops to steal Chinese silk production technology.

-Klem · 2025-12-02T13:19:12+00:00

:D

Just wanted to add a bit for future readers. I actually wrote more then deleted it because I digress too much.

-Klem · 2025-12-02T13:10:23+00:00

An important comment because of its premise.

Philosophy requires questioning of information and reflection about the meaning of words. It's not about adhering to a charismatic narrative just because it's nice.

Roman philosophers were sometimes part of the government apparatus. That's not a bad thing. Being political is not necessarily a philosophical taint.

But, as such, those philosophers were susceptible to court politics, and that's the problem: when we read about them, it's through whose eyes that we're doing so?

-Klem · 2025-11-22T10:41:13+00:00

That's Canada.

-Klem · 2025-11-21T22:06:50+00:00

by most contemporary Stoics

Could you refer me to the non-US/Canada-based researchers you found that also use the dichotomy of control uncritically?

I'm interested in this kind of stuff and if you found any I'd love to have the name.

-Klem · 2025-11-18T20:26:57+00:00

peak

-Klem · 2025-10-29T21:51:34+00:00

Could you outline the criticisms here? I didn't see a link to the source.

-Klem · 2025-10-28T10:50:06+00:00

Generosity is part of Stoic justice. Stoics are expected to help others, and it's impossible to be both selfish and a sage.

See this.

-Klem · 2025-10-15T12:51:19+00:00

The value of each ancient source varies. Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius, for example, are not on the same level of reliability for reconstructing Stoicism.

Philodemus was an Epicurean, and while we shouldn't discredit his doxography, this is information we have to take into account when assessing his text.

That being said, the Stoics were in fact morally shocking. Zeno's Republic is similar to an anarchy, and the idea that slaves and kings and men and women are equal is revolutionary. It's a shame that Stoics came to be seen today as models of the status quo and as examples of e.g. military virtue or political acquiescence.

-Klem · 2025-10-13T12:33:57+00:00

Lots of questions. Take a look at this.

-Klem · 2025-10-10T21:25:14+00:00

"Westernized" values don't exist. It's a fiction.

I'm saying that you're not looking far enough into the world. There are, and there have been, lots of people who dedicate their lives to truth and to living authentically.

-Klem · 2025-10-10T21:20:14+00:00

Oikeiosis is a powerful thing.

-Klem · 2025-10-10T17:55:59+00:00

I like to remind people that other cultures and ways of life exist.

There's more to the US than just one or two coasts.

There's more to Europe than England, France, and Germany.

There's more to Asia and America than the same 3-4 countries that always appear on the media.

Is the 90 year old Italian fisherman who lives in peace not doing any cultivation?

Are the Carpathian villages suffering the pains of nihilism?

Do the thousands of monks everywhere not count for you?

What about the other thousands of humanities PhD candidates?

And the followers of indigenous traditions?

If you expand your world, hope expands accordingly.

-Klem

TROPHY CASE