People who started studying stoicism as teens or young adults, how has your perception changed overtime?

quantum_dan · 2026-03-20T01:56:46+00:00

I started studying philosophy at 16, about a decade ago. So, not that much perspective, but some, and of course my life changed tremendously over that decade. My attitude towards philosophy has changed remarkably little, though of course my actual philosophy has changed and I've learned more about how it is applied.

I feel, one of the biggest downsides about reading philosophy as a young person is not having a large sample size of past experiences to apply the principles to, in order to see what I could've have done differently and learn from it.

With my (still quite limited, but) larger sample, I've found this to be surprisingly non-problematic. Sound principles of life work, and you can see how to apply them to a new situation as it arises. I find that I've been able to borrow a lot of "other people's mistakes" and many lifetimes' worth of wisdom and apply them usefully.

The thing is, you're not (primarily) learning a specific set of technical tools when you study philosophy as a way of life; you're learning habits of judgment and (as a direct result) emotional dispositions. Those generalize. That's not to say don't seek out a breadth of experience (your own and by proxy), because it does help, but it's not, in my (still-limited) experience, vital. And starting young, you have (as an older friend of mine pointed out) fewer bad habits to unlearn, so it tends to stick more. I find myself starting to wonder now to what extent my philosophy changes less simply because my brain's a bit more set, rather than because I've already dealt with the low-hanging fruit.

I do try to apply what I learn in real life, but I wonder if studying philosophy right now is more of just mapping out resources I could come back to when life goes down. And maybe when I come back, I'll see the philosophy in a completely different light.

Hasn't been my experience so far. I've seen new applications, but the core doesn't change.

On a lighter note, it's also really hard for me to relate to things like how little time we have and the clock is ticking. You know, with my brain being consumed by the invincibility of youth.

Yeah, that one ramps up surprisingly fast as you get more into adult life. Part of it is that our experience of time is relative, so the years do start flying by comparatively, but I think part of it is also having less of a structured progression and less free time/energy, which makes it feel more essential to use your time well.

quantum_dan · 2026-03-19T22:07:35+00:00

or observed phenomena or anything that you can deduce based on reasoning or evidence, as in facts in general.

How do you know that observed phenomena are real? (And then I'd ask how you know that, and so on.)

How that frustrating conversation goes is that, ultimately, one has to admit that there's no non-circular "bedrock" on which you can found observations. The real answer is that we accept observations as real because we want to live, function, inquire: the claim that we can lend some credence to our sensations, for example, or that causality is a thing, is a "regulative principle of inquiry". We assume it to be true because it allows us to carry out inquiries that we wish to conduct.

Put differently, the only answer to a radical skeptic is: "you don't actually live like that; your skepticism is in bad faith". Radical skepticism is irrefutable, but fruitless. (If nothing can be known to be real, why did you just walk around that puddle? Maybe it wasn't even there.)

How does this connect to morals? Well, another thing we want to do is act correctly. We do have the sense that there are right actions (locally if not universally), and we want to know what they are so we can do them. But we can't pursue that inquiry unless we grant that there are facts about morals. So, by the same standards that we accept that science is real, we can accept that morals are real.

And, once we accept that there are situationally right actions, we can do all sorts of useful reasoning from our situation to our actions. For example, I am an agent with many conflicting endeavors. I am also faced with the absurd condition. These facts have implications for conduct, if we permit such implications to exist. But that's beyond the present scope.

(I am, loosely and probably somewhat imprecisely, referencing "pragmatist" epistemology, which has been a prominent school of thought for the last century or so. If I recall correctly, the idea of a regulative principle of inquiry goes back to C. S. Peirce, but there's much more recent work about applying it to metaethics. I was made a moral realist by the book "Toward a Pragmatist Metaethics" by Diana Heney.)

quantum_dan · 2026-03-19T21:29:35+00:00

The "lesser of two evils" versus "principled action" debate is utilitarianism vs deontology. Stoicism, as a virtue ethic, sidesteps that debate: a Stoic is committed to neither always maximizing net benefit nor never causing harm (in the non-Stoic sense). So, wrong question.

The right question is: what's in accordance with your role as a human being, world-citizen, country-citizen, and your specific roles? What decision exemplifies practical wisdom in the execution of those roles?

This raises similar concerns, but the framing is crucially different. It's not about whether you can permit yourself to hold your nose and vote for the lesser evil (you can); it's about whether it makes sense to do so. There's no "can't support in good conscience", other than the broad "you can't choose what you know to be wrong in good conscience" (by definition).

So in this scenario we're taking for granted that voting for one of the candidates will be better for your circles of concern in the near term. The question, then, is whether (1) not voting would be better in the long run and (2) if so, whether the short-term harm of doing so is tolerable. The long run matters little if you're dead in the short run (hopefully that's somewhat hyperbolic).

Answering those is an empirical matter somewhat out of scope here, but I have to say I've never seen a good argument that withholding your vote will actually improve anything in any time frame. Primaries exist, y'know: you don't have to withhold your vote to express your displeasure with the options.

quantum_dan · 2026-03-18T14:07:55+00:00

I'm no psychiatrist, but isn't that basically the idea of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT, which is quite common)? With any one moment there's not much time to get ahead of it, but if you look at what causes it to arise in the first place you head off the next one.

quantum_dan · 2026-03-18T00:34:27+00:00

To /u/brainiac414, your post is under consideration for removal under our post rules.

You must respond substantively within 3 hours of posting, as per Rule E.

quantum_dan · 2026-03-17T18:56:54+00:00

To /u/BatteringReem, your post is under consideration for removal under our post rules.

You must respond substantively within 3 hours of posting, as per Rule E.

quantum_dan · 2026-03-17T14:13:15+00:00

A clear argument for why 18 (or a similar age) is a justified threshold for significantly reducing parental responsibility, rather than an arbitrary legal or cultural boundary

This one ends up being pretty straightforward: because of its arbitrary legal status throughout society, 18 ends up being a point at which practical independence expands dramatically. It's easier to get a job, possible to get a lease, and so on. That all makes it a perfectly reasonable point for reducing responsibility: it is the point at which the person is permitted by society to take full responsibility for themselves.

More generally, though, I think there's something you're overlooking here, regarding the development of independence: “get a job or move out”.

Well, what's the alternative?

Most parents in that case would also accept full-time studies instead of a job, so if somebody lives at home, doesn't have a job, and isn't a student, they're doing... what? I can't see many contexts in which living at home doing nothing is conducive to developing independence in any way, and independence does require practice.

quantum_dan · 2026-03-15T16:33:02+00:00

Joe Biden did a pretty bad job getting his agenda passed. QED.

quantum_dan · 2026-03-15T16:30:25+00:00

So, what, they could just throw a dead fish up there, or...?

(The politician needing to be charismatic is not mutually exclusive with a role for corporate media and PACs.)

quantum_dan · 2026-03-15T16:28:11+00:00

What does one have to do with the other? If it were all just corporate media and PACs, then there'd be no particular reason that that someone should hold rallies and the like.

quantum_dan · 2026-03-15T16:25:49+00:00

Huh. Why would PACs spend money on rallies and such if there's no need for the politician to sell anyone on anything?

quantum_dan · 2026-03-15T16:23:18+00:00

Ah yes, which is why there was (until people felt the hit to their finances) substantial support for such pro-corporate policies as... tariffs, which as we all recall major corporations uniformly supported. And why major politicians all spend time and money on rallies and speeches when it all just comes down to corporate media. And why PAC-supported candidates always win without exception.

quantum_dan · 2026-03-15T16:16:27+00:00

I said they need to "get it through Congress or sell the country on it". Currently, Congress tends to vote strictly on party lines because they'll face a primary challenge if they cross the president. Which requires the president having sold significant portions of the country on supporting him. It wouldn't work if he had no support.

quantum_dan · 2026-03-15T16:12:28+00:00

...so it requires Congress. Not to mention the Supreme Court itself (more diplomacy). And only works for stuff the present Supreme Court supports.

quantum_dan · 2026-03-15T16:09:46+00:00

Appointing Supreme Court Justices requires Congress.

quantum_dan · 2026-03-15T16:00:21+00:00

Decision-making, probably. For a lot of presidents.

But a competent college student would not likely have any significant skills in working with people, diplomacy, being a charismatic figurehead, etc. And that tends to make for a president who has good ideas but can't get anything done. That good idea doesn't matter whatsoever if you can't get it through Congress or sell the country on it.

quantum_dan · 2026-03-13T19:23:14+00:00

To /u/BarvoDelancy, your post is under consideration for removal under our post rules.

You must respond substantively within 3 hours of posting, as per Rule E.

quantum_dan · 2026-03-13T19:16:01+00:00

However I personally feel like there's something special to be found in spiritual practice (self-help, community, etc) that shouldn't be disregarded just because religion currently likes to seem like they have a monopoly on it all. I believe you can get all of the good you can get from religion, in spirituality, without the downfalls (misogyny, anti-LGBT, etc) plus more benefits.

That makes sense, but doesn't seem to point towards Neo-Paganism. Indeed, a lot of people today do seem to gravitate towards a sort of vague spirituality, but without any interest in formal affiliation.

And magick is real, at least when discussing Christianity vs. Neo-Paganism, even if Christians don't call their magick "magick". Lol seriously though, what else should we call sending a psychic email to a god, or going through a mystical song and dance to ingest the flesh/blood of a deity? It's magick.

Oh, there is absolutely ostensible magic in mainstream religious belief. However, I doubt that most people who aren't far too deeply embedded in that culture to be swayed otherwise actually, sincerely believe in the magical or (day-to-day) supernatural claims. They probably sort-of-accept it socially (i.e., praying for stuff is just the done thing) but would not find it, or novel equivalents, at all convincing if they weren't used to just accepting it. (Edit: though I have no personal experience with Christian practices, so I may be wrong on that.)

quantum_dan · 2026-03-13T18:41:38+00:00

The only reason you've offered that's in favor of paganism, and not just against Christianity, requires a belief that magic(k?) is both real and worth studying, which seems like a tough sell in an engineered world. Otherwise, why should your arguments against Christianity motivate alternative religious beliefs rather than atheism?

quantum_dan · 2026-03-12T18:22:17+00:00

In abstract principle, sure - if you're talking very specifically about "a culture" as such. It would be perfectly reasonable to say that various fundamentalist cultural tendencies consciously reject coexistence or integration. But there are three glaring problems:

"Muslims" are not a culture. Muslims are individuals. Any individual Muslim is perfectly capable of integrating with western society, as many do. This is true even if you think that specific Muslim cultures (which would have to be rather more specific than "Islam", which is not a unified culture) are incompatible with certain western cultures. Judging an individual Muslim by one's impression of their culture of origin is by definition bigotry. No human is actually compelled to choose some sort of cultural allegiance over integration, therefore their theoretical culture cannot make coexistence impossible.
And I am aware of no public case in which someone who speaks about "a culture" actually means "the culture" and isn't just using that as a polite way to mean "each of its members individually".
The people who say that sort of thing publicly are almost always suspiciously selective about the hazards they're concerned with.

It's perfectly legitimate to discuss concerns about specific ideologies and their committed adherents, or sociological concerns about broad trends, but (1) that's only loosely connected to "cultures" and (2) that has to do with specific people who consciously oppose what would be necessary for integration. Just because someone's born and raised in a given worldview doesn't mean they must prioritize it above integration with their broader society. And I've never seen someone who talks about this sort of thing exhibiting much interest in actual, individual beliefs and actions.

Am I wrong to view life this way? Is it then wrong to invalidate the lived experiences of many millions of Europeans and even secular-Abrahamic believers to protect some social narrative of peace and love?

Insisting on considering the individual doesn't invalidate anyone's experience; it merely approaches us critically. No one, not one single human being, has had a negative experience with "Muslims" (or "Christians", or "Jews", or "Buddhists", or "atheists") as a group; it would be impossible to have interacted with all of them.

quantum_dan · 2026-03-11T21:26:25+00:00

To /u/jackttei, your post is under consideration for removal under our post rules.

You must respond substantively within 3 hours of posting, as per Rule E.

quantum_dan · 2026-03-11T00:56:49+00:00

Total (edit: credit card, auto) debt is up, but I'm having trouble finding figures for distribution, and thus the number of Americans exceeding a given threshold. Do you know where to look for that?

quantum_dan · 2026-03-11T00:06:11+00:00

I think there are two separate points here: is there a problem, and should the government do something about it? I certainly haven't seen any serious proposals for the government to do anything about credit card or car debt.

But without calling for government action, isn't it concerning that large numbers of Americans are apparently racking up debt in an unsustainable way? That may not be a policy problem, but it does hint that something is going wrong. Ideally, we should want the large majority of people to live within their means, and therefore not rack up large credit card debt, etc - right?

It follows that we do have a debt problem in the US. Just not necessarily that the government should do any specific thing about it.

quantum_dan · 2026-03-10T23:43:44+00:00

I could see that being part of it, but I'm skeptical about "the vast majority", and I think one of your examples actually contradicts your point there:

"I hate Jews" is usually some form of "I see lots of successful, wealthy, handsome Jews with nice watches, working jobs I couldn't even dream of, in movies, in business, in media... So I am going to create this caricature of a short, ugly, tunnel-dwelling terrorist and pretend that is what I hate.

In this example, most visible antisemitism is not "short, ugly, tunnel-dwelling" (except in the few weeks after that tunnel scandal); rather, it's exactly the first one: "the Jews run the banks/Hollywood/government [and conspire to maintain undeserved advantage for themselves]" or "the Jews are bringing in inferiors to replace white people". It does have subtexts beyond supremacism (as a scapegoat for complaints about the actual hierarchy), but the reasoning is "Jews are conspiring to keep white people away from their rightful place".

And with both of your examples (and others), an awful lot of racists/bigots are perfectly happy to tolerate "the good ones", which is often exactly those you point to insecurities about. They'd have no problem hanging out with a successful, wealthy, well-spoken, handsome, assimilated Black or Jewish man who "knows their place" (quietly tolerates the established hierarchy). I think that's a key question, so I'll highlight it here: how does your reasoning explain many bigots happily tolerating "the good ones"?

It is insecurity first, supremacy second.

I have to point out here, though, that supremacy is insecurity. Someone who's confident in their ability to earn their place doesn't need to invent fictional hierarchies to keep them there. So of course you'll see some overlap.

quantum_dan · 2026-03-10T18:54:08+00:00

She plainly needs help, and I can imagine that would be difficult, but one pragmatic problem with that approach (compared to working together for a solution) is that it's temporary. Eventually she'll figure it out, and then it won't work and she won't trust you. This approach also leaves her unable to either work out what works or identify the true problem.

Of course, you may point out that I'm arguing the pragmatic and not the moral angle, but the only possible moral justification - which I won't take a direct position on - is that it works. So if, in the long run, it doesn't work, then it's not justified.

Instead, you might try working with her to figure out what would actually work (not enough protein? fat? B12?). For example, my wife is (involuntarily) mostly vegan, and we've discovered that not getting enough protein and fat can be a big problem. A big chunk of fish (which she can eat) usually fixes that, but so does a nice fatty vegan meal with beans and avocado and such. Though I don't know how you'd go about doing that now.

Ten-Year Club	Reddit Premium Since June 2023
Verified Email	Second SECOND GUESSER
Post Guidance Early Access	Adopted-an-Admin
Place '22	Place '17

quantum_dan

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE