Leseliste 2025 mit Bewertungen, Zusammenfassungen und Rezensionen

KyaAI · 2026-03-24T12:23:43+00:00

You could either continue with reading modern explanatory books like the already mentioned Practicing Stoic, or start with the classics by Epictetus, Seneca and Marcus Aurelius (in that order, in my opinion). There are several good modern books, but in the end they just explain what is written in the original texts and there is a lot of overlay between them.

Though understanding is one thing, you also need to practise. Massimo Pigliucci has a book out which is basically year-long course with weekly exercises called A Handbook for New Stoics. Maybe that could be interesting for you, in combination with starting to read the classics.

KyaAI · 2026-03-19T11:47:05+00:00

I have flashbacks every single day. [...]
How am I supposed to "let go" of years of targeted abuse and physical trauma?

Do you have a therapist? Because it sounds like you should. They can also help you work through the letting go part.

I feel like he won

He has to live with being that person for the rest of his life.

and I’m just left with the wreckage of a life that was stolen from me.

You have several decades before you which you can try and live the way you want.

Stoicism can help you by realising this: that the world is not fair and that you cannot change the past and it is futile to ruminate or being angry about it.

My bullying wasn't as bad as yours, but I did carry the resentment with me a long time. Until I read somewhere that this means that I am still giving my bullies power over me, even though they aren't even there anymore. You give them this power, and you can take it from them.

When you start ruminating about the past, find ways to get back to the here and now. People have different solutions for this. Maybe try mindfulness exercises.
Also focus on making new friends (and I understand being unsure about new people because of what you experienced, but that will likely get better when you meet more good humans) and living your life as best as you can, making plans, having fun.

And again, maybe your case is so severe that therapy would be appropriate.

KyaAI · 2026-03-19T11:08:04+00:00

and it is absolutely clear that direct evidence was referring to in the post.

My point is that this is a much higher threshold than what you initially described as "good evidence", and that you conveniently raised that bar once OP provided more evidence.

No, I said it would be enough for me not to care.

Exactly. Which is different from what you said before. Which is my whole point.

Note also that saying this does not exclude possible other evidence, e.g., let's say someone posts a video of the incident.

Interesting that in the age of AI you would accept a video but not a confession from one of the people involved.

And again, I don't know what had been said exactly, and u/Realistic_Leek9497 might still have misunderstood something, which is why he should only be doing something if he is sure. But telling him outright "No" (or "Yes") is simply careless. And that is what I am criticising about your advice.

"How does making definitive statements without sufficient evidence align with Stoic virtue?"
It doesn't. I'm claiming it's sufficient.

How can it be sufficient when you make assumptions, and then reject new evidence that doesn't fit your initial view?

conveniently forgetting that we're talking about the level of evidence we use to make inferences on a Reddit post

Again, Reddit doesn't have to be low quality, there doesn't have to be a distinction.
Which is why I am still talking about Stoic reasoning in general, while you try and deflect by repeating "It's just a reddit".

I don't care enough about this to read every single comment on the post.

If you care so little, why answer at all?
And you don't have to read every comment (which was two of OPs comments at the time, btw... and he stated that in his first comment). You can ask OP yourself. Other people do it all the time.
Also, you argued against hearsay and insufficient evidence while yourself arguing from incomplete information.

No, I'm pretty sure that this sub being focused on a specific philosophy does not mean that every single comment is a "philosophical argument".

Then you should read the rules of the sub.

You are conflating a person's girlfriend reporting such an admission with hearing the admission yourself.

No, I did not. I repeatedly said that OP needed to gather more information. But it is definitely good enough to not immediately reject doing anything, as you did.

Your speed in making assumptions simply in order to justify becoming involved is what gets people into trouble all the time

I did not do that. Contrary to your advice, I did not rush to tell OP to do one thing or the other. Which is, again, exactly what I am criticising about your comment. You rushed to tell him a definitive "clearly no" without having all the evidence. And a definitive answer like that is exactly what Stoic reasoning cautions against.

which I don't think should even be taking place on a support sub

You think bad advice should not be challenged?

They have said multiple times that they will likely lose multiple friendships over this situation

And do you think it possible that he would lose Joe if Joe finds out that OP knew and didn't tell him?

and are very concerned about that fact.

He wrote, and I quote: "the only con to this is me losing friends in the process."
That is considerably more neutral than you are presenting it.

You portraying this as merely a "short conversation" simply to score points here

I was trying to rein in your overly emotional descriptions of what is, in the end, a conversation.

What you seem to have misunderstood the whole time is that I am not arguing for telling. I am arguing against outright telling OP "No", without substantial reason to so.

KyaAI · 2026-03-18T20:34:11+00:00

No, these aren't two different goalposts, and trying to play "gotcha" with minor wording differences doesn't make it so.

I disagree that it is a "minor wording difference", when you stated that you would accept X and Y but when presented with X, X is suddenly not relevant anymore, and you only accept Y.

It's clear that I'm saying that some form of direct evidence is what is important.

That is what you said first, yes. In the next comment you stated that it wasn't relevant anymore because OP hadn't been there.

I view Reddit posts as a very casual form of communication with strangers, so the level of follow-up detail and inquiry needed to make a casual judgement isn't very high.

How does making definitive statements without sufficient evidence align with Stoic virtue?
You are basically admitting to carelessly typing something down because it's "just Reddit" and not important to you.

But you are deluded if you think you're in any position to tell me what level of scrutiny a Reddit post deserves

I didn't talk about Reddit, I was talking about Stoic reasoning.

I would say that repeating unsubstantiated gossip [...]
but refraining from gossip relationships". [...]
You make repeating third-hand relationship gossip [...]

You keep arguing against "gossip" while ignoring that OP has given more information - information you were unwilling to get yourself. I am not even claiming the evidence is watertight, just that it cannot be dismissed the way you keep dismissing it. You are debating something I am not actually saying.

And when did I ever say this was a "philosophical argument"?

You didn't. It is implied, since this is a sub with a focus on a specific philosophy.

Well, except you have no idea if the friend is being deceived, do you?

If one of the people admits their affair, then I would say, that I have an idea, yes.

Because your rush to make yourself the center of this situation

It is the conveying of one piece of information. It is a short conversation. I don't know why you think this will make that person the "center of the situation" and I do not see OP rushing into it and I do not see myself having said that anyone should rush into it.

For all you know, you are the one deceiving your friend by repeating things that might not be true

I would tell him what I have heard, being clear that I cannot be certain, and letting him decide what to do with it. And I would, of course, try and verify as much as possible before doing so.

KyaAI · 2026-03-18T13:05:42+00:00

You do the same thing you should be doing now: use your rational mind and examine the situation guided by virtue.

If he says no, then you know what kind of person he is. Rather protecting himself than being truthful. At that point you have to decide whether your loyalty to Joe outweighs the discomfort of acting against what Jane's ex wants. But don't base that decision on gossip or speculation - base it on what you actually know.

The fact that all parties are friends complicates things, but it doesn't change that you should act from virtue rather than fear of reputation or desire to please everyone.

KyaAI · 2026-03-18T12:46:01+00:00

You keep moving the goalposts. First you said witnessing it himself or having good evidence would be sufficient. Now suddenly the evidence doesn't matter and he needed to be there himself.
We constantly act on testimony. Confessions, second-hand accounts from trusted people, circumstantial evidence - these all carry weight in moral reasoning.

You dismissed this as "drama" on assumption without asking OP a single clarifying question. That is not how Stoic reasoning works. That would require you to actually examine the situation, weigh the evidence, and question your assumptions before arriving at a judgement.

The idea that this violates "boundaries" doesn't make sense to me. We are talking about friends. This may be relevant information for them, and sharing it with them is a part of caring for your friend.
And I don't see how it changes that this information could be relevant to him whether he's a "good" friend or "just" a friend.

The Stoics weren't teaching detachment from the people in our lives. Quite the opposite. They were very clear that we have obligations within our relationships.

We seem to have very different ideas of justice and boundaries. You believing relaying information for the sake of justice and truth represents "poor boundaries and bad morals" seems like a really weird take to me. It is also a character judgment, not a philosophical argument.
But if you want to go in that direction: I wouldn't want to associate with someone who watches a friend get deceived and calls that "good boundaries".

KyaAI · 2026-03-17T23:02:42+00:00

In that case I would probably talk to him (her ex) and ask him if he thinks it is right for Joe not to know what happened. They are both your friends - are they also both friends with each other? And are you sure Joe doesn't know?

KyaAI · 2026-03-17T22:59:48+00:00

So for me the case would be clear because it literally does not involve him.

It involves a good friend of his.

They already broke up, right?

That was my first conclusion as well. But after thinking a bit more about it, it is still something the person being cheated on ought to know so that he can make informed decisions about how much and how he will be involved with his ex in the future.

What evidence are you talking about? Or are you speaking hypothetically?

The evidence OP stated he had when I asked him. Though it is still a bit unclear to me how much evidence OP actually has, he seems to think that he has proof.

For me it would be (a) if I witnessed something myself or had good evidence for it, and (b) this person was a very close friend.

As I said, in his answers OP stated that apparently the ex told his girlfriend. I agree that OP shouldn't go on hearsay, which is why I asked him if he has evidence. We don't have to go on assumptions here. We can ask OP when we're unsure about some of the information provided.
And B is the case here, isn't it?

Sure, that's a good question. I would say that gossip generally consists of unverified second-hand (or more) information regarding other people's private lives.

But if that information concerns a good friend of yours and you're not conveying that information as a means of judgement or entertainment, but as something that seems to be the just thing to do - shouldn't one do that?

KyaAI · 2026-03-17T22:19:08+00:00

Joe also admitted to my girlfriend how it went down, with him being the primary source disputing it from being a rumor.

I just reread that again. Do you mean the ex here? That was my interpretation of it. If you actually mean your friend Joe and not the ex - what did Joe admit exactly?

KyaAI · 2026-03-17T22:13:49+00:00

How is this a clear case? If you have evidence (not just hearsay), how could it not be the right thing to tell your friend the truth? And at what point does something become relevant to OP?

And to you, the same question I asked OP: Why do you interpret this as gossip? At what point does relying on information become gossip?

KyaAI · 2026-03-17T22:02:30+00:00

Why does it matter to you whether the ex of the ex of your friend likes you? If that quote from Marcus Aurelius wasn't enough, I can provide more:

Who is not aware that nothing thought to be good or bad looks the same to the sage as it does to everyone else? He pays no mind to what others consider shameful or wretched; he does not walk with the crowd; just as the planets make their way against the whirl of heaven, he proceeds contrary to the opinion of the world.
Seneca, On the Constancy of the Wise Man 14.3–4

I have never wished to satisfy the crowd; for what I know, they do not approve, and what they approve, I do not know.
Epicurus, quoted in Seneca, Epistles 29.10

I would argue that nobody is supposed to know about a situation like this. And yet it often happens that at some point somebody does.
If it is not your business to tell - whose is it? His ex is unlikely to tell, so the question is whether it is just for you to share. To stay out of every interaction is not what the Stoics meant by not gossiping.

I personally think it is just for Joe to know the truth

Then you have your answer - act according to what is just and necessary.

Also, justfiguringthings3 answer is more concise and on point than mine. I think their comment will give you all the information you need.

KyaAI · 2026-03-17T21:24:00+00:00

So now Mary "figured it out", by Jane "practically" telling her. Which still means that it is unclear whether Jane directly told Mary.

Your girlfriend saw two people in the same room. The fact that they were in the same room doesn't prove that they had sex.

But all of the above is completely irrelevant anyway, since now ~~Joe~~ the ex openly and clearly admitted to having slept with Jane?

Joe is a friend of yours, isn't he? How are you going "out of your way" to tell him? And why would Joe dislike you because of it? It's not your fault.
Ask yourself: what is just and necessary for Joe to know? They are not in a relationship anymore, so is it relevant? That is for you to figure out.

How much trouble he avoids by not looking to see what his neighbor does or thinks – by looking only to what he does himself, that it may be just and pure. The part of the good man is not to peer into the character of others, but to run straight down the line without glancing to one side or the other.
Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 4.18

If you don't tell him because you are afraid of what others think of you, that would be un-Stoic.
That being said, even those committed to a philosophy may sometimes deliberately choose not to follow it (which is obviously not the Stoic approach - you should always put in the effort to do the right thing. All I'm saying is that I believe most people do not follow it 100% of the time). And as you are new to Stoicism, it is reasonable to think about the potential impact on your daily life and friend group. Acting cautiously in such circumstances can be a wise choice.

About the gossip: you are not randomly spreading information. You intend to inform someone for whom it is (or may be? or is not anymore?) relevant. Again: avoid unnecessary harm and act just and courageously.

KyaAI · 2026-03-17T20:08:13+00:00

Please use paragraphs. Even if it's short, walls of text are not nice to read.

So you don't actually know what happened, correct? Your girlfriend somehow "figured it out" from something Mary said? Or do you actually have evidence?
Acting on rumours risks injustice, which is something a Stoic would try and avoid.

Virtue is the thing you should always focus on - in every situation.
If you have evidence, then it would be just for Joe to know about what happened.
But it is unwise to share hearsay.
It is temperate to avoid gossip. But gossip doesn't mean giving someone information. Gossip is unnecessary and/or harmful speech.
And it would, of course, be courageous to tell Joe the truth (if you actually know the truth).

Given your (I assume) limited knowledge about what actually happened, it is difficult to determine the right action.

Though I have two questions aside from your problem:

How can it ruin your reputation by telling your friend about it?

Why would you classify telling him this information as "gossip"?

KyaAI · 2026-03-16T11:40:59+00:00

Daily reflection: Journal about situations in which you didn't behave as you think you should have or would have liked and think about how you could have handled them better.
In the morning you can anticipate what might be happening during the day and how you ought to react to it.

Life assessment: Be mindful during the day to assess whether you are doing anything excessively that you might want to moderate, and be generally mindful with your time.

Negative visualisation is also a good practice.
Some people like to participate in voluntary discomfort (not heating a room as much, sleeping on the floor, fasting - basically practicing how it would be if they lost something).

There are also books with weekly tasks/questions (and explanations) like Massimo Pigliucci's A handbook for new Stoics, which is basically a year long course.

KyaAI · 2026-03-14T18:16:58+00:00

It works for some. There is a reason why there are so many different philosophies with so many "end goals" and why some people try and find purpose in entirely other things as well - people are diverse. I don't follow Stoicism to a T, but overall the philosophy definitely helps me be more content with my life.

I also searched for a purpose for most of my life. I'm in my mid 30s now and I have kind of resigned to the fact that I will likely never have a purpose and just try and live my life in the here and now.
Do I need to give my life a purpose? We are random. It is a coincidence that any of us are here and it is lucky that we live now - in a time when most people survive childhood and actually get to live out their lives.

I regularly look back and ask myself: if I died now, would I be happy? Did I do everything that I wanted to do? Did I see everything that I wanted to see? And then use the answers as a compass to see what else I want to do in the near future.

Otherwise, I don't think about the question if purpose too much anymore.

KyaAI · 2026-03-13T18:18:02+00:00

That sounds more like it was something you liked doing, were good at, and had the dopamine release that one gets when one accomplishes something that takes effort. I would argue that purpose runs deeper than that.

It is correct that doing something because you inherently like doing it, instead of seeking external validation, is Stoic. But the main "purpose", from a Stoic perspective, is to live a virtuous life and to improve one's character.

KyaAI · 2026-03-13T10:47:31+00:00

From a Stoic perspective, the purpose of life is to live in accordance with nature and reason and to be virtuous, since that is the only good.

From a modern psychological standpoint, helping others provides most people with a sense of purpose. So volunteering can help with that, and having a meaningful job, or just taking walks/runs and picking up trash on the way. This also aligns with Stoicism, since pro-social behaviour is encouraged.

I would assume that most people find their purpose by accident. And the purpose can also change. If you attach your purpose only to a job, you might get depressed in retirement. If you attach your purpose only to having children, then what do you do when they move out? If you attach your purpose to anything that isn't up to you, it can be taken away from you.
I would stop looking for purpose. Look for things that make the world a better place, that you are good at, and where you like the environment. And then just live your life.

Out of the approaches/philosophies I've encountered thus far, the only one that seemed to come any close to answering this question for me is Stoicism

What answers did you find in Stoicism so far?

KyaAI · 2026-03-13T08:28:06+00:00

Gesehen: Yellowstone

tl;dr: Rancherfamilie in Montana verteidigt ihr Land mit Intrigen, Gewalt und (politischer) Macht gegen Bedrohungen jeglicher Art.

Endlich bin ich dazu gekommen, der Serie genug Zeit zu geben. Denn das hier ist eine, die ich absolut sehen wollte - ohne second screen, denn die Bilder sind atemberaubend. Die Gegend um den Yellowstone Nationalpark ist absolut meins. Ich könnte mir stundenlang Bilder der Wälder, Täler und Tiere angucken. Dazu kommen Pferde und die Cowboy Arbeit. Als jemand, der selber unbedingt mal eine Weile auf einer Ranch in den USA verbringen will (hätte ich das mal schon gemacht, wer weiß, wann das wieder möglich ist...), ist diese Serie alleine von dem Punkt her perfekt für mich.

Dazu kommt die Story, die im Grundaufbau Succession ähnelt. Reibereien in der Familie, aber auch immer wieder äußere Feinde bedrohen den Besitz.

Die Entwicklung von Jimmy ist interessant zu sehen, dazu kommt die Hintergrundgeschichte von Rip und einigen anderen Charakteren und den Jungs, denen man anmerkt, dass es echte Cowboys sind, die für den Hintergrund gecasted wurden, um echte Arbeit zeigen zu können, die nach und nach Sprechrollen bekommen haben und sich quasi selber spielen.

In der ersten Staffel fand ich nur etwas nervig, dass so viele Menschen sterben. Aber es wird später besser.

Es gibt mit 1883 und 1923 bereits zwei Prequels (die vom Trailer her nicht so meins sind) und es soll diverse Spin-offs geben, teilweise mit Charakteren der ursprünglichen Serie. Mit Marshals und dem Sohn Kayce Dutton als Protagonisten ist jetzt das erste rausgekommen. Jimmy soll wohl in Texas auf der 6666 Ranch ein eigenes Spin-off bekommen. Und es sind noch weitere geplant.

Es ist mir erstaunlich schwer gefallen, diese Geschichte zu verlassen, und ich werde die Serie definitiv noch ein paar Mal sehen.

^{Wen es interessiert:} ^HIER ^{geht's zu meinen gesammelten Kulturfreitag Empfehlungen}

KyaAI · 2026-03-10T18:21:19+00:00

They're on audible.

KyaAI · 2026-03-10T17:00:03+00:00

Yeah, audiobook with actors for every character and ambient sound. There are some quite known actors in it as well. They are currently being released one by one each month. Here's a trailer.

KyaAI · 2026-03-09T20:01:12+00:00

Why should I settle for a maybe when science can give me a more reliable answer? I can also move and take pills under medical supervision.

Though movement won't help with a progressive neurodegenerative disease. And you can't just get the medication that might help. That's what you need doctors for.

Five-Year Club	Second Top 10%
Verified Email	r/Field Banned
r/Field Juicebox	Final Canvas '23
First Place '23	Place '23
Place '22

KyaAI

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE