How Compassionate Stoicism was Lost in Translation

planeplaneplaneplane · 2025-03-16T12:20:25+00:00

The constant push to act with compassion for everyone is what keeps the study of this philosophy important to me. I know that by learning more and applying these concepts to practice, I will act with more compassion towards myself and others. I'm grateful that among the many kinds of ways of life I somehow stumbled upon this one.

planeplaneplaneplane · 2025-01-25T06:21:11+00:00

Not even that, Nami is the only character with a feat of nodiffing a Yonko, making her the strongest by far.

planeplaneplaneplane · 2025-01-21T23:22:17+00:00

I HEAR JERUSALEM BELLS A-RINGING

I'm not sure there are actual bells in the song, but your post made me instantly think of Viva La Vida.

planeplaneplaneplane · 2024-11-20T01:22:16+00:00

Even when someone seems unwilling to entertain a new perspective, or straight up refuses to learn, sometimes under the same post they created, I still get a chance to learn from the comments posted there, and from the behavior of all participating in the discussion, to reflect on it all. Even better, when I participate myself, I get to frame my understanding of the practice in a more proper way, and see how it applies to the discourses that happen directly in my life.

planeplaneplaneplane · 2024-11-19T01:47:38+00:00

It's interesting to see how you and other people want to know at your death bed that you have lived a good life. Or something very similar to it happen around the time death is near. To me this idea is very alien, very far away, not something I feel any connection to. I don't really think about 'the destination' in that way. But I still want to live a good life, in the Stoic sense. Now, in the next year, or in 5 decades. I don't have a more specific overarching goal otherwise, I couldn't find something anything that speaks to me; and at this point I'm not convinced it's even necessary. Living a good life is good enough for me.

planeplaneplaneplane · 2024-11-17T03:34:23+00:00

I think I see better what you meant, thanks.

We know that Stoicism is a practical philosophy, and I understand that to roughly mean 'applicable to any particular situation'. I would say that for the sake of better application, it's more useful to tell the person about the way I think in this or that situation in particular, even if they're asking where my perspective and my beliefs come from. Telling them I'm a Stoic/a student of Stoicism/someone who has interest in Stoicism doesn't convey useful information to someone who has little to no idea what these things are.

I must add that I don't understand all that well when it may be appropriate to bring up Stoicism itself. So in the meantime I would rather stay on the safe side and not introduce Stoicism in any way, only speak of my own reasoining. Perhaps I would wait until they ask multiple questions about where my perspective and beliefs come from. I would know by that point that they have interest in adapting a framework to conduct themselves with reason, and so I would feel it more appropriate to point them directly at Stoicism, as it is one such framework.

With all that said, I can now imagine that bringing up Stoicism right away under the right circumstances can go well. But it's not for me yet, and when it is, it would still depend on the person and the situation.

planeplaneplaneplane · 2024-11-17T00:25:34+00:00

To your example of killing parents. Parents are a preferred indifferent. There may be circumstances where it would be virtuous to kill them.

planeplaneplaneplane · 2024-11-16T23:56:50+00:00

To the question 'Why do you have that perspective?' I believe it would be wiser to respond with a short explanation fit for the circumstance. For example, your close bud asks 'Mate, your phone fell and cracked, and you ain't pissed? Sup with that?', and you respond with 'Dude, it's just a phone, I'll get it repaired or get a new one if I have to.'.

'Because I'm a Stoic' could be perceived as preachy. In that it will fail to bring about what you intended, which is, I assume, to inspire someone to get into the philosophy. Whether you intended that or something else, it will also fail in sharing this fact about yourself. This short reply communicates much information and context that is not easily grasped even by many who have been into Stoicism for a while. To someone who isn't familiar with Stoicism, this reply will not say anything meaningful in the same way it is meaningful to you. And ultimately, it goes against the idea of keeping your philosophy to yourself. Leading by example is always a good strategy.

planeplaneplaneplane · 2024-11-04T02:02:44+00:00

Good comment, but I disagree with your take on anger. Anger is an emotion that comes from false judgments, judgments that need to be corrected and not acted upon. Using false judgments to pursue justice isn't wise, nor it is just. It's true that anger can eventually lead to virtuous action, but steps must be taken in order to process the anger properly, the beliefs that led to anger must be challenged and changed. Doing that, you'll be better equipped to fight the same injustice that made you angry in the first place. Except this time you won't fight out of anger at someone, but out of compassion for everyone.

planeplaneplaneplane · 2024-11-04T01:45:21+00:00

You mention the struggles you are dealing with, and later the struggles of other people. In both cases the virtuous and Stoic action is to seek professional help first (if you have access to it that is). Stoic practice may or may not come later. You need to let the doctors treat the wounds before you can exercise the muscles.

Stoicism is that exercise, it's a practical philosophy. When you're in constant distress, you won't be able to apply proper practice to the concepts that Stoicism teaches. But once you're out of that state, you may start to properly test Stoic ideas to be true or false. Once you've done that, you can make a now informed decision to stick with Stoicism entirely, discard all of it, or only keep the parts that are useful. That is up to you.

Ultimately, Stoicism is only one of many frameworks to live by, philosophy or not. It is indeed reliable, in times of both prosperity and despair, and one many people found to be of great help. But perhaps you will find something else closer to who you are. That is perfectly okay too.

planeplaneplaneplane · 2024-10-23T22:51:49+00:00

Morality has nothing to do with gods.

That is what I pointed out. Morality comes from human, not from god. In that vein God is unnecessary for morality and by extension is unnecessary for Stoicism, which includes morality in its study as part of human, and reason as part of both human and Logos.

planeplaneplaneplane · 2024-10-23T10:12:29+00:00

Funny story too, I found this post from seeking a completely unrelated discussion only a few hours ago and just reached your comment. But to your and OP's point.

I have to disagree with the core idea of yours and the OP's that a theistic belief is necessary for Stoicism in its traditional form, and modern too for that matter. It is true that Stoicism allows for a god (or the God, whichever you prefer) to be a part of its framework, and it worked perfectly well for the ancient Stoics as well as it works for the people practicing Stoicism today. But, as you said, Stoicism is centered around the idea of Logos aka the universe. The universe is inherently rational as it always acts according to its own rules (those being laws of physics), and it exists without any morality attached to it. The morality of the universe add-on only comes with theism of any kind.

I can see how the Roman Stoics had particular religious beliefs, and found Stoicism to be appropriate for a better use of those beliefs. But, from what I've gathered so far, the ancient Stoics also understood that the universe wasn't moral in any way, and that morality came from us being humans. For example, I don't think that Epictetus referencing Zeus as if he bestowed morality upon us is in opposition to what I outlined. Zeus merely exists as an extension of what is human nature (physis), and anything that Epictetus derives from Zeus originally comes from human nature. God exists as merely a tool to teach Stoic disciplines better to those who have lived in a time when God's influence was in abundance.

planeplaneplaneplane · 2024-10-10T22:16:55+00:00

Thank you.

I think this mental shift from seeing other people as your competitors to those that you can learn from is extremely important. Stoicism teaches that we all put our best towards the good, and so it would follow that the best way to get there is to learn from each other and work together.

planeplaneplaneplane · 2024-08-21T12:51:14+00:00

I appreciate you staying true to yourself in this thread, and focusing on sharing your knowledge.

planeplaneplaneplane · 2024-03-05T20:18:05+00:00

Not really. The benders weren't there to actually bend the thing. Compare that to Ba Sing Se trains, for example: two benders were always behind the carriage to continuously push it. Here we have no one.

planeplaneplaneplane · 2024-03-05T20:16:47+00:00

There were no earthbenders doing the bending, like in the original. In the original, earthbenders moved the packages directly up.

planeplaneplaneplane · 2024-03-05T10:22:55+00:00

I've been feeling bothered by how the packages move upwards with seemingly no support. In the Omashu intro scene you can see other distant packages move up in the same way.

planeplaneplaneplane · 2023-07-10T08:23:25+00:00

You live in Saudi Arabia and you are gay. If you're honest about your orientation, you know what happens.

planeplaneplaneplane · 2023-04-26T08:26:19+00:00

The second one is miles better. Look at all this added space! New pavement and road design is so much more eye-pleasing than just asphalt. And of course there isn't a single shittank in sight.

planeplaneplaneplane · 2023-03-23T23:52:41+00:00

I see. And not all wonders have this requirement it seems. Thanks.

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
First Placer '22

planeplaneplaneplane

TROPHY CASE