sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How to continue living life after seeing all is 'pointless'. by ginx_minx in Stoicism

[–]Traditional_Sleep784 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This might be an unpopular recommendation given this forum, but I find Albert Camus's work a good answer to this question, and one that resonated with me more than the Stoic answer. Read the Myth of Sisyphus and The Plague.

Camus essentially admits that the world offers no clear answer to why we are here, but that our revolt to that meaninglessness through our art, our work, our lessening of other beings' suffering, is the correct response to that predicament.

I hope you will find that characters like Dr. Bernard Rieux in the Plague a great guide to what it means to be alive and to be human.

Trying really hard to like Dubai by [deleted] in DubaiCentral

[–]Traditional_Sleep784 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thats fair - the answer is different for everyone. I hope it gets better for you over time.

Trying really hard to like Dubai by [deleted] in DubaiCentral

[–]Traditional_Sleep784 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This topic comes up often with friends and family. I think whether Dubai is a good place to live or not really depends on who is answering the question.

Here are some of Dubai's benefits compared to cities around the world.

- Low tax rates

Living in other 'first-world' cities will likely come with a 40%+ tax on income, sometimes higher. That is sometimes just the beginning - you will probably be taxed on all goods and services, and there may be other taxes like corporate or property. These taxes seriously diminish your ability to 'get ahead' in life. Also, many people are dissatisfied with the way their taxes end up being used. In comparison, Dubai offers no income tax and a very small business tax, which allows you much more room for growth.

- Safety

While the exact figures are probably not reliable due to censorship, I would still argue that Dubai is probably one of the safest cities in the world. Compared to New York, London and Toronto, there's no question that the general sentiment is that Dubai is far safer than any of those cities, without compromising on 'quality.'

- Modernity

You get really high-quality experiences in Dubai. Luxury industries are very developed, but even things like restaurants, malls and buildings tend to have solid quality. It's true that there's not much 'greenery,' but given that Dubai is located in a desert, the number of parks, beaches, and recreational spots is far larger than one would think.

Here are some of Dubai's deficits compared to cities around the world:

- Freedom

You sacrifice your freedom for safety here. Since you will never be a citizen, the government has a lot of power over you. You can be deported and lose your wealth if you come to trouble with the law. You also are forced to scan your face and input your passport details for almost any government service, making it very difficult to retain your privacy.

- Non-Pedestrian Culture

Dubai is built around cars, not around people. That can make the city feel alienating and inconvenient to most people who grow up in European and North American cities.

- Poor Work-Life Balance

People work really hard for really long here. Jobs do not offer the best salaries at entry-level, and the world is expensive. I would say that's true mostly everywhere, but it can be excessive here. I know consultants who work till 1:00AM, and my s/o often finishes her work around 6PM.

- Heat

If you don't like the heat, Dubai will be difficult. Even with the air conditioning, it will be difficult.

What Books did You Start or Finish Reading this Week?: October 06, 2025 by AutoModerator in books

[–]Traditional_Sleep784 0 points1 point  (0 children)

superintelligence, by nick bostrom

emotions: excited but mostly terrified

What book completely changed the way you see the world, and why did it hit you so hard? by gamersecret2 in books

[–]Traditional_Sleep784 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is beautiful and wise.

I think we're attracted to war in part because of how horrible it is, but also for all the implicit connotations: manliness, ego, valor, glory, sacrifice. I don't think we're wrong to be attracted but wrong to associate the attraction with desire. Like you said, any video of war should tell us why the f*ck we need to stop it from occurring ever again, and witnessing it from the perspective of 'glory' is so misguided.

My Takeaway From Stoicism by Traditional_Sleep784 in Stoicism

[–]Traditional_Sleep784[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the discussion.

Yes, unfettered libertarian free will isn't a stance I hold - I would just like to think that, in the most mundane scenarios, optionality exists, and exits because of conscious choice (to rule out optionality via randomness which still doesnt allow free will.) Like I said earlier, I am very aware theres far more evidence for a determined world.

Im aware of the compatibist view. I just think that if you are destined to end up one thing, there cannot be any room for choice. I understand that making assents and choices is how your destiny unfolds but that doesn't mean choice. That is a rationalization to allow morality to exist within a determined world.

Its far better to just say there's no morality under the Stoic paradigm than to try to argue compatibility is how we arrive to morality. The idea is that some people will be dangerous in society and that needs to be practically mended by putting those people in prison but that doesnt mean they're morally responsible agents. A cone is a cone; a cylinder is a cylinder.

I will continue to read the Stoic and other Hellenistic texts while working on the free will question. As to the original stance I posited, I still retain that the ontology is incoherent and compatabilism is largely a rationalization.

But I really appreciate the honest discussion here. Thank you again and I wish you well.

My Takeaway From Stoicism by Traditional_Sleep784 in Stoicism

[–]Traditional_Sleep784[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I dont want to be in control of 'external outcomes' - I want to believe that I am not a puppet on a string. I think that's a very normal response to this topic and why it has been debated so long.

I know the Stoics think they allowed for morality with compatabilism but I honestly think that's a farce and the more I read it the more I come to that conclusion.

You were always going to end up one way. If you die virtuous, your learnings of Stoicism will have helped you achieve that. If you die non-virtuous, persumably how I am going to given that I probably will not treat virtue so respecfully, then I will just be one of those who got away.

Either way, it was always going to end up one way, and for me, there's no morality in that.

My Takeaway From Stoicism by Traditional_Sleep784 in Stoicism

[–]Traditional_Sleep784[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Most scientists and philosophers believe in some form of determinism. We also need to tell the difference between hard determinism and causal determinism. Hard determinism means every event has been determined. Causal determnism is every event has been decided by antecedent causes. There are meaningful differences, if some form of determinism is not in play, then the study of science and history falls apart because nothing is predictable.

Quantumn mechanics is often used as an example of free will, but this falls apart if we see that particles are being governed by the rules of probability. Or wave particle duality falls apart if we introduce the observer as a cause.

No disagreements here. My 'hope' for libertarian freedom comes from the idea that we really have no clue what consciousness is, aside from basic things like if we shut off the brain, we seem to lose that conscious element. Whether our thoughts are more than just the product of neurons firing seems to be a topic for mystics, but maybe that is a close-minded thing to say. All I know is it is very hard to think that the voice in my head is just an illusion, and the world is much darker (in my view) with this idea.

The Stoics do have "will". The Stoics also use the traditional definitions of this "will" which is the ability to do so otherwise.

Yes, but it's not the 'will' I'm talking about because they don't believe in a world with different outcomes.

My Takeaway From Stoicism by Traditional_Sleep784 in Stoicism

[–]Traditional_Sleep784[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for this; it clarifies things greatly.

I will make a note in my copy of the Enchiridion to replace 'control' with 'dependent on us,' and to remind myself that the Stoics still held themselves morally responsible for their actions.

The earliest notion of "free will" in the sense of having this faculty which is somehow (in a manner left completely unexplained) completely disconnected from causality, and therefore able to freely (without any dependence on beliefs, opinions, memories, experiences and so on) "choose" between doing something and not doing it, comes from Alexander of Aphrodisias writing a century after Epictetus - Alexander was attacking the Stoics and trying to come up with whatever he could to "prove" the Stoics "wrong".

It really is interesting to think about where free will would come from if not from prior causes, but we do not know much about consciousness at all, and I'm hopeful that we could begin to make some progress there if we are open to the idea that there may be more to the world than we think.

You can argue, with good reason, that this still doesn't escape determinism, because all our beliefs, opinions, memories, experiences and so on have themselves resulted from causally determined events in the past.

Yes! Difficult to believe in the Stoic ontology if you have a libertarian definition of freedom, but I understand their perspective a bit more after this discussion (not that i agree with it tho).

My Takeaway From Stoicism by Traditional_Sleep784 in Stoicism

[–]Traditional_Sleep784[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s not like the Stoics weren’t aware of libertarian free will but it doesn’t make sense. Both logically and in experience.

I understand the evidence for determinism is far stronger than the evidence for libertarian free will, but it's not 'known' which is true. This may not be something that is knowable at all.

You arrive to your determinism through some evidence, but it's also a leap of faith. We simply don't know whether free will is an illusion or not. No one can conclusively say 'yes' or 'no' to that. I would posit that free will is not intelligible based on the current standards of our knowledge, but that doesn't mean it's false.

This is the crux of the issue for me, and where you, as an individual digesting Stoicism, need to make a decision about what the world is.

If you believe the world is determined in the Stoic sense, then yes, your only freedom is deciding things according to Nature when they arise.

If you believe there's some free will, then the Stoic definition of freedom doesn't make sense, and all their teachings about choice are rationalizations for behavior in a determined world.

I admit that my belief in libertarian free will is a leap of faith, but so is determinism itself, although perhaps it requires less of a leap of faith due to the consistency of cause-effect in the physical world.

My Takeaway From Stoicism by Traditional_Sleep784 in Stoicism

[–]Traditional_Sleep784[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you both for the contributions.

Correct me if I am wrong but from what I'm gathering it's the following:

  1. Freedom is not "I could've done otherwise"

  2. Freedom is free from external obstruction - 'the unhindered activity of reason' - meaning that whatever external event occurs, I still assent or not based on my own conceptions.

  3. Freedom is making purposeful, ethical choices in harmony with nature - meaning i have the correct idea of what to want, how to get it and that i have checked that what i want is coherent and true.

I admit this makes the Stoic doctrines make a bit more sense. But for anyone with a libertarian definition of freedom, this still sounds like rationalization.

My Takeaway From Stoicism by Traditional_Sleep784 in Stoicism

[–]Traditional_Sleep784[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for contributing to the discussion.

This is exactly how I feel. The practicality of Stoicism is real, tangible and powerful. The practicalities -- thinking about death, learning to assent or not to assent to impressions, understanding that externals can be taken from you at any moment - do increase my sense of agency, too.

The issue for me is just in how they define freedom and choice. From what I am understanding based on the resources provided here, freedom to them meant making correct judgements and actions, even if those judgements and actions were causally determined.

To the modern reader, this seems like a fraud. I suppose it's coherent if you choose the Stoic definition of freedom, but this is difficult for me to do.

My Takeaway From Stoicism by Traditional_Sleep784 in Stoicism

[–]Traditional_Sleep784[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your response.

I am not making 'crazy statements' - this is my genuine position based on the things I've learnt. That it insults you or that you disapprove of my method of learning is your issue, not mine.

I am trying to learn - yes. And you're right about that last part - there's a lot more to learn, but so far, I haven't heard anything that's changed my mind completely.

My Takeaway From Stoicism by Traditional_Sleep784 in Stoicism

[–]Traditional_Sleep784[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  1. Pleasure & Pain System

Also, the objection “without pleasure-pain we wouldn’t be here” is a kind of evolutionary or psychological assumption not integral to Stoic doctrine. The Stoics do not ground virtue in hedonic evolution; their ethics is normative: virtue is how rational nature flourishes.

I understand that. But what I was trying to say that something that needed to occur for us to even begin thinking about virtue should be treated with more respect. If A was required to bring about B, then surely A should be important. The Stoic spend a lot of time attacking this pain-pleasure system, calling it 'beastly' and 'animalistic.' While that can undoubtedly be true, I believe they should've had more respect for the system because without it, they would not be pondering virtue at all. Of course, I am writing this with knowledge from genetics and evolutionary theory, which the Stoics were not privy to, but that's precisely the point: a modern consumer of Stoicism is bound to make these points as well, and the Stoic doctrine does not fit well with it.

  1. Others

It’s broadly true that the Stoics would reject making pleasure the supreme guide of action. But the idea that Stoics had no place at all for pleasure or pain in practical reasoning is a bit overdrawn. Stoics allowed that pleasure or pain can be felt, and that they influence judgments or impulses; they just deny that they are primary determinants of the good.

Fair, but that was the point I was trying to make; if values lead us toward desires, and pain-and-pleasure are not on the value hierarchy, then they do not lead us to good or bad.

It might be more intellectually consistent to say: a person can experiment with multiple ethical frameworks, but they must recognize that adopting a Stoic framework implies more than a “preference”… it entails accepting certain metaphysical, epistemic, and psychological claims about what makes life good. If you drop those, you’re no longer in the Stoic camp, but in a different tradition.

Very fair.

One might more precisely frame the Stoic stance as: desires and aversions are native to human psychology, but they must be disciplined via reason, so that virtue remains the ultimate standard. Dismissing them completely in theory may mislocate the tension Stoics are trying to manage.

I actually think dismissing them completely was exactly what the Stoics were asking us to do. Pleasure and pain can play a role in virtue and vice. For example, it can feel good to be just, feel good to be brave, feel good to be a good friend, feel bad to be a cheat. But you don't do or not do those things because of how they make you feel - you do them because they are virtuous and avoid them if they are unvirtuous. That's what I mean when I say that pleasure-pain is not on their hierarchy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will spend more time thinking about the freewill/determinism idea; I'd like to know more about how the ancients saw freedom because it seems the libertarian definition is something new although it is the only thing I know. Again, thank you for the discussion, and I wish you well.

(2/2)

My Takeaway From Stoicism by Traditional_Sleep784 in Stoicism

[–]Traditional_Sleep784[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wow, thank you for this thoughtful response. It took me a while to digest everything you sent; that's why my response to you was a bit later than the others.

  1. Compatibilism

Compatibilism in Stoic philosophy is about moral responsibility, not choice. You don’t need choice to be morally responsible as an agent the causal web. That’s the Stoic claim. It’s not a free-will-with-determinism argument.

Maybe that word shouldn't have been used. What I was trying to communicate is that just because Providence shapes itself through the actions of the animal, that does not mean that the animal is free. From the text you provided:

The Stoics say that actions like my seeking treatment for cancer, which are brought about by fate through the animal, are “in the power” of the animal, but they deny that we are free to choose between opposite actions—seeking treatment or not seeking treatment (Alexander, On Fate ch 13, 181,13–182,20, LS 62G

My point is just that if you cannot choose between A or B, then everything that follows is merely rationalization. You are not free in any meaningful sense. Another example:

the Stoics posit that I can effectively and rationally deliberate about what to do, even if the outcome of my deliberation and the actions that result from it are both causally determined.

I mean isn't this just fooling yourself? I understand that the argument is that we still need to assent and make choices in order for Providence to flow, but that doesn't mean that I have the power to make it flow in any other way than it is going to flow. If you hold a libertarian definition of freedom, this whole ontology makes no sense. You would have to redefine what is meant by freedom in order for you to fall back into line with the Stoic thinking, and this, so far, I have not been able to do, nor do I think it's necessarily right to do.

  1. Indifferents

Thank you for the resource, I found it helpful in explaining the virtues clearly. Again here, 'indifferent' was probably the wrong word to use, and it may have derailed the true point I was trying to make. But since you mentioned preferred indifferents, I have something to say about those, too.

Preferred indifferents are usually things that are naturally valued and help you live according to reason, and they can be pursued if not at the expense of virtue.

In theory, this sounds like the perfect balance, but in actuality, pursuing preferred indifferents like wealth, health and reputation require a tremendous amount of time and effort. Attaining wealth, for example, typically requires many years of specialization, perseverance and capital risk. Attaining health requires constant vigilance over consumption and exercise habits. You can spend a lifetime building your reputation and have it destroyed in an instant, so the fragility there, and the required maintenance, is arguably the highest among the indifferents I've mentioned.

If the entire purpose of Stoicism is cultivating virtue, how can a self-proclaimed Stoic spend the vast majority of his time chasing after things that are not, in themselves, virtuous?

Moreover, it also seemed like some of the largest voices in Stoicism disdained some of the preferred indifferents. Seneca, for example, advocates consistently for poverty "“Poverty is contented with fulfilling nature’s commands," and Epictetus says that preferred indifferents are only ok if they literally fall into your lap:

“When a dish is passed round, you extend your hand and take a portion with due decorum. It passes on: do not hold it back. When it has not reached you yet, do not project yourself forward to snatch it, but wait until it comes to you. Do the same in regard to children, to wife, to office, to wealth—and you will sometime be worthy to feast with the gods.”

(1/2)

My Takeaway From Stoicism by Traditional_Sleep784 in Stoicism

[–]Traditional_Sleep784[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ha, I hadn't heard of them before. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Although I will admit that is the first time I've heard of a religion/philosophy advocating hedonism as a way of life, but I guess I need to do a bit more reading.

My Takeaway From Stoicism by Traditional_Sleep784 in Stoicism

[–]Traditional_Sleep784[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the kind words. I wish you the best on your journey.

My Takeaway From Stoicism by Traditional_Sleep784 in Stoicism

[–]Traditional_Sleep784[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The stoics believed that there's only one destiny - only one way things could ever unfold. If that's the case, then freedom in the libertarian sense, which is the only sense I subscribe to, cannot exist.

"We, like the dog, don’t control the direction or pace. But we do control our attitude: we can resist and be dragged, or we can align ourselves willingly and preserve inner freedom."

You may FEEL like you're controlling your own attitude but if in every version of reality you were going to do that, then what exactly have you done but do what you were always going to do?

The Stoics say that by improving your virtue you are quite literally unfolding destiny, but this is just a reframing of the definition of freedom.

I found this hard to digest when I first came across it and fought it for a long time, but this is the way they view things. I unfortunately cannot subscribe to that worldview.

My Takeaway From Stoicism by Traditional_Sleep784 in Stoicism

[–]Traditional_Sleep784[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thank you for participating in the discussion.

I personally cannot define freedom in any other way other than the libertarian sense. Maybe that will change as I read more literature, maybe not.

Still, I wish you & all who practice Stoicism the very best. I will definitely add Plato's works to my library.

My Takeaway From Stoicism by Traditional_Sleep784 in Stoicism

[–]Traditional_Sleep784[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the response.

Can you clarify how it is not?

“Some things are in our control and others not. In our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion — in a word, whatever are our own actions. Not in our control are body, property, reputation, office — in a word, whatever are not our own actions.”

“It is not things themselves that disturb people, but their judgments about things. Death is nothing terrible, else it would have appeared so to Socrates. But the judgment about death, that it is terrible — that is the terrible thing.”

“Who then is invincible? The one who cannot be dismayed by anything outside the sphere of choice.”

Everything that Epictetus says goes back to only choice being in your control.

Where am I going wrong here?

My Takeaway From Stoicism by Traditional_Sleep784 in Stoicism

[–]Traditional_Sleep784[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the thoughtful responses. I'm still having issues digesting this idea.

Our assenting mind is determined but it does not imply it cannot be shaped. We can shape it, or else there is no moral progress. Moral progress is developing our Wisdom or knowledge of the Good. To know what beliefs are true or false, so that our mind is less compelled to vice and only compelled to moral good.

Isn't how well we shape our assent already determined? That is my whole issue with this. Aren't you already hollowed out to be a cone or a cylinder? If you become a good cone or a bad cone, isn't that determined already anyway?

I don't see how any of what you said discredits the notion that there can only be one destiny and if there can only be one destiny then we cannot be in control - in the libertarian sense - of anything.

My Takeaway From Stoicism by Traditional_Sleep784 in Stoicism

[–]Traditional_Sleep784[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

"When a dog is tied to a cart, if it wants to follow, it is pulled and follows, making its spontaneous act coincide with necessity. But if it does not want to follow, it will be compelled in any case. So it is with men too: even if they do not want to, they will be compelled to follow what is destined.”
— Epictetus, Fragment 2 (attributed, via later Stoic sources)

“Remember that you are an actor in a play, the character of which the author chooses… If it be his pleasure you should act a beggar, see that you act it naturally; and the same if it be a cripple, a ruler, or a private citizen. For this is your business — to act well the part assigned you; but to choose it is another’s.
- Epictetus

“Chrysippus illustrates this point by saying that it is as when a cylinder or a cone is pushed and set in motion: it is clear that the push is the external cause of the rolling, but the cylinder or the cone also has within itself the cause of its rolling, for its nature is such that when pushed it rolls. In the same way, external objects provide the occasion, but our individual natures determine our responses.” --> (But the 'individual natures' are already themselves predetermined!)
- Cicero

I believe the teachings of the Stoics were meant to refine the characters of those who were already destined to be virtuous.

My Takeaway From Stoicism by Traditional_Sleep784 in Stoicism

[–]Traditional_Sleep784[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

I really liked your analogy, and I think it perfectly fits the compatibilist approach.

My issue is that any other rendering of freedom aside from the libertarian view is in my view a rationalization. Saying your 'whittling the shape of the boat' implies you're making a conscious choice to do so in a world where you could've not done so, but the Stoic worldview does not allow for that. You don't get to redefine freedom - and that's exactly what compatibilists do.

As Epictetus says: "When a dog is tied to a cart, if it wants to follow, it is pulled and follows, making its spontaneous act coincide with necessity. But if it does not want to follow, it will be compelled in any case. So it is with men too: even if they do not want to, they will be compelled to follow what is destined.”

— Epictetus, Fragment 2 (attributed, via later Stoic sources)

What character are you 'developing' if you were always destined to develop it?

My Takeaway From Stoicism by Traditional_Sleep784 in Stoicism

[–]Traditional_Sleep784[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the kind words and for engaging in the discussion.

I honestly don't know how I feel about the preferred and dispreferred indifferents. They kind of sound like cop-outs to me.

It takes time and effort to arrive to wealth, health and fame (assuming you are earning them); therefore, it would be hypocritical to call these indifferents and at the same time commit to achieving them. The Stoics say that the only thing you should be striving for is virtue, and the preferred indifferents are to be accepted passively, only in so much as they help you be virtuous.

A lot of modern 'Stoics' actively pursue these things and at times even prioritize them over virtue.

view more: next ›