If you look at what people actually do to be happier, it seems nearly everyone tries to change the external facts: we try to become richer, thinner, more successful, to find a better house in a nicer area, and so on. A few of us think about trying to spend less time working, and more time on hobbies or with friends and family. Almost no one thinks about actively retraining the way they think. In fact, I don’t think this last idea even crosses most of our minds.
Have you read “The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck” by Mark Manson? If not, you may want to check it out. I’m rereading it right now for the second time. By the title, it may sound sensationalist, but the content seems very well grounded to me. Very Buddhist in his beliefs. Manson makes a great case for finding personal fulfillment by ceasing our pursuit of happiness and instead minimizing our suffering through our choices. We all face pain in our life, but we can minimize a great deal of our suffering by choosing how we take responsibility for the pain we face. The basics of this mindset have worked well for me this past year so I’ve set aside some time to dig deeper.
Interestingly, in this same series, there's a Buddhist Perspective. I only glanced at it, I might give it a thorough read later. As for happiness, I wouldn't describe it as "unstable" but more as "ephemeral and conditional." Which, I guess from a certain angle, could be interpreted as "unstable." I tried to chase after happiness for quite a while, from treasuring things such as comics, video games, antiques, and cars, to trying to pursue money and status through my career. It never really worked because there was always the want of more and more and also the frustration of wants unfulfilled. It wasn't until I decided to take a 90 degree turn and focus less on "happiness" and more on "detachment" that I started to feel more fulfilled. My priorities shifted from the material to the more philosophical. I still struggle with unhappiness, sure, and there's still a material component to it, but it's different. For example, I'm still unhappy career wise, but not because I don't make enough, but because I don't think my job reflects my values and I think it's a morally destitute place with a morally destitute function. I'm unhappy materially, but not because I don't have enough, but because I think I have too much and my possessions are a burden because they make it difficult to live in a clean and orderly home, they create sense of regret in money and time wasted, and I still own some things that remind me of who I used to be that I don't want to be anymore. One thing I wonder is if "detachment" is an even more nebulous and harder to obtain ideal than "happiness," but one thing I do know is that as nebulous and elusive as it is, I'm pretty confident that pursuing it is making me feel like a more moral, more driven, more complete person.
I like how anti-"fun" he is : and Seriously, it's a shame that mindfulness is more mainstream than CBT. I guess coming from antique Asia, is the recipe to success in the west. Cant wait when everyone start ingesting mercury like Qin Shi HuangCalifornia because they think of the weather and fail to take account of other things, such as the fact that California is full of tedious hippies.
In other words, last night’s party was never as good as you think it was.
Is he though? If he was "anti-fun" I don't think he'd have made this statement. Dude is all over the map, actually. It's not his fault, happiness is a complex concept (it's no wonder people struggle to achieve it). He seems to jump back and forth between the concept of happiness as approached by pursuing pleasure and contentment as approached by detachment, discipline, and self understanding. Not surprisingly, he finds arguments that validates and invalidates both. The whole conversation is unfocused, which is understandable, because it looks more like it was an interview instead of a thought out, planned, and focused essay. Even if it was, I don't think the concept of happiness, pleasure, fulfillment, contentment, suffering, and struggles could be tackled in so few words.I like how anti-"fun" he is :
I used to be part of the Territorial Army (now known as the ‘Army Reserve’) and spent most of my weekends in cold, muddy puddles getting shouted at. When I looked back on the weekends, I’d somehow convinced myself that I’d had a great time playing soldiers. So I put this to the test and one weekend I decided to write down how I felt as it happened. I realised I hated it. That was my last weekend with the Army.
The problem is that he's trying very hard to put forth the notion that classical greek Stoicism is "happiness" when what the Stoics were really going for was closer to "contentment" or "satisfaction." I suspect he does this because the Jordan Peterson Army has co-opted Stoicism but it doesn't change the fact that he's basically using a lot of "I thinks" and "I feels" and unreferenced mad-libs examples to plagiarize Meditations in pithy self-help column format.
I did not know that Stoicism has been given a bad name recently, which is a shame. There's a lot of things in there that I find agreeable, such as the need to place emphasis on deeds over words and how a healthy outlook approach to detachment can help us focus on what is right and important over what is desired. "Meditations" makes for a pretty good read, from what I've thumbed through. Dala bought two translations. I think she got the Gregory Hays translation with herself in mind, as it's written in modern English and is therefore easier to follow, and she got the Martin Hammond translation for me, cause it's a little more poetic, and she knows how much I love poetry with my religion/philosophy.
. . . My issue with Stoicism is it quickly becomes bent into a kind of tough guy, cold, emotionally detached approach to reality. But isn't that missing three core concepts of Stoicism then? That one, concepts like compassion and generosity are in and of themselves virtuous behavior. That two, detachment isn't about separating one from reality but a way to live with it. That three, deeds matter? Detachment isn't about self restraint or self denial though. Detachment is about the ability to let go and to not be moved by undue influences. For example, I love my car but if I crash it and total it, I need to learn to be okay with that or else the love of my car will harm me. Or I love and adore my country, but I need to exercise that love and adoration with detachment so that I am able to see its flaws and protect myself from falling into a jingoistic mindset. Detachment doesn't mean I can't own a car or love my country or hope for good things, detachment means I need to keep those things from corrupting me, harming me, or cause me to harm others. Once again, detachment empowers you to do your best, hope for the best, expect great things, but be at peace with the results if they're less than stellar or if they are stellar, keep the results from going to your head. Edit: I'm not trying to be argumentative or combative here. I'm just trying to sound things out loud because the way you're talking about stoicism and the way I understand it feel really different.Stoicism shares a lot of parallels with Buddhism in its approach to detachment and focus on so-called virtuous behaviour.
The problem lies in whether or not self-restraint and possibly self-denial is appropriate in all contexts, and to what degree.
The other problem is it is very difficult to truly know what it is or isn't in one's control. I could spend the rest of today writing a song, call a random drummer in a Facebook group, work like a dog, and have a music video out by next Friday that will propel me to international stardom. Is that likely? It's possible. I would argue to desire anything seriously requires a degree of attachment, and potential disappointment and unhappiness. That doesn't mean you shouldn't still do it.
I think part of the issue you're running into with this is that you're kind of taking an "all or nothing approach" and if we're to approach this with Buddhism in mind (I'm gonna switch to that cause I'm a bit more familiar but the parallels with Stoicism are still there), there's the whole "middle path" and "avoiding of extremes." With traffic in mind, who's to say being cut off warrants any response more than knowing that it frustrated you, appreciate the fact that you can still be frustrated, and let go of the moment. I'm not necessarily saying "no harm, no foul" but sometimes it's better to just not act at all. Now say on the other hand, you're being mistreated by a co-worker and they're creating a hostile work environment for you and your other co-workers, that's a situation that requires a thoughtful reaction. Similarly for generosity, it's not an all or nothing approach. It's important to give, but it's also important to not give so much that you burn yourself out, put yourself in financially, emotionally, psychologically precarious positions. I feel like I could answer this from a Baha'i perspective, but since that's not the philosophy discussed here and I'm starting to doubt what I understand of Stoicism, I don't have a good answer for this. I think the best answer would to circle back to Stoicism's emphasis on personal, independent thought and say "you gotta analyze the situation and come up with your own answers." It isn't, but you gotta factor in concepts of what is compassionate, what is just, etc. With that in mind, to the quote you selected . . . Overcoming destructive emotions doesn't mean not feeling them, it means knowing that they're there, that they make you vulnerable, that they can cause harm, etc. It means empowering you to make the right choices not because they're absent, but because you can handle their presence. Determinism is partially nonsense in my opinion. It's a good way to fall in an apathetic or fatalist mindset.Desiring not to be a jingoist or loving a country is a personal judgment in itself. What flaws you might find where you live might be different from which flaws somebody else finds. American exceptionalism, for example, might be good for the economy. Would you go to war to defend your country? One could argue the most compassionate response is to refrain from killing, always, and not to expose yourself to situations that could get you killed. Another might call you a coward who's okay with fascism spreading.
I don't disagree clear thinking and rationality are possible and desirable, but it becomes difficult outside of formal logic and mathematics.
Stoicism teaches the development of self-control and fortitude as a means of overcoming destructive emotions; the philosophy holds that becoming a clear and unbiased thinker allows one to understand the universal reason (logos).
I don’t know, it seems like you have a pretty good grasp on what a Stoic is supposed to be like. This reminds me a bit of one of Marcus Aurelius’ writings (don’t have my books handy so I can’t give a verbatim quote, but here’s the essentials of what I remember) about “It’s unfortunate that this happened. No, it’s fortunate that this happened and that I remained unharmed by it. It could have been anyone, but not everyone could have remained unharmed. Does what’s happened keep you from acting justly and with self control, honesty, and all the other qualities that allow one’s nature to fulfill itself? Then remember this principle when something threatens you: the thing itself is no misfortune, to endure and prevail is great fortune.” I am fairly certain I am missing a bunch of that passage but really, the only quote out of that book we all need right now (not really) is this:Overcoming destructive emotions doesn't mean not feeling them, it means knowing that they're there, that they make you vulnerable, that they can cause harm, etc. It means empowering you to make the right choices not because they're absent, but because you can handle their presence.
Waste no more time arguing what a good man is like. Be one.
And I agree with you there, by the way. Like I said elsewhere when quoting Marcus Aurelius . . .The notion that "pure judgments" of situations can exist is a stretch. Personal judgments will always cloud reality. The illusion is in the "rational" approach not just being another personal judgment.
I don't agree with that whole statement, because I think it leaves room for people to be tempted by their own egos and idle fancies
Because it's as aesthetically pleasing as it is functional or because our familiarity with its themes offers an air of authority and legitimacy? I dunno. This is news to me. Honestly. I kind of find it hard to see how a philosophy with a core tenant of "think for yourself" can, if taken seriously, be married to "thought movements" or "philosophical trends." Maybe I misunderstand stoicism. Edit: Meditations 5:3 I mean, I don't agree with that whole statement, because I think it leaves room for people to be tempted by their own egos and idle fancies, but it's definitely a call for independence. Maybe I don't understand Stoicism, but maybe others don't as well . . .Judge yourself entitled to any word or action which is in accord with nature, and do not let any subsequent criticism or persuasion talk you out of it. No, if it was a good thing to say or do, do not revoke your entitlement. Those others are guided by their own minds and pursue their own impulses. Do not be distracted by any of this, but continue straight ahead, following your own nature and universal nature: these two have one and the same path.