Not sure if Friday afternoon is the time to start this but here goes; I'm firmly in the Stoic camp. But in the classic sense not the modern. So if this debate might interest you, have at it. I'll do my best to keep up.
I may have misunderstood the question but at the risk of embarrassing myself I would say stoic. Why use 10 words when 1 will do...
OK , now after looking up the classic definitions , I'm going with both if this is possible while on one hand I tend to appreciate simplicity I enjoy dipping my toes in luxury from time to time.
Can someone translate this in my native language of dumbass..? lol I have no idea what either word means and I'm ok with that.
I think he wants to know if we talk too much and/or if we have smooth skin? Lol I may talk too much, but my epidermis is fine. Too funny, above my pay grade.
Interesting question. I had to do some reading, and find that I'm fairly evenly split between the two camps. It will be fun watching this one develop.
I had a conversation with a young university student maybe 10 or 15 years ago. The point of discussion was about being "yourself". I contended that I choose to be me everywhere I went to everyone I met. Made my life easier if I didn't need to remember what way they perceived me and I didn't need to put on my Public Face. He said," Oh, your a Stoic." Since then I've done a little reading. I was surprised that I had independently reproduced an ancient Greek Philosophy. One of my favorite passages is from Marcus Aurelius. Say to yourself in the early morning: I shall meet today ungrateful, violent, treacherous, envious, uncharitable men. All of these things have come upon them through ignorance of real good and ill... I can neither be harmed by any of them, for no man will involve me in wrong, nor can I be angry with my kinsman or hate him; for we have come into the world to work together... Edit; On the idea of either / or, I can't rule out a bit of Epicurean philosophy. "A philosophy advanced by Epicurus that considered happiness, or the avoidance of pain and emotional disturbance, to be the highest good and that advocated the pursuit of pleasures that can be enjoyed in moderation." The pursuit of happiness is not Anti-Stoic. I don't have a reference to the following quote, but it's relevant. "There is nothing of any greater value than human happiness. Therefore, all conduct and behavior should be oriented toward that aim, maximizing its availability while minimizing opposing risks. Though happiness is an accidental product of naturally and culturally evolved attributes of the human animal, it exceeds everything else in human experience in terms of its enjoyability and desirability, and therefore it is self-contradictory to assert that there is anything humans would enjoy or want more than their own happiness. However, there are tangible differences between happiness in this sense (as a form of pleasant contentment that everyone would desire more than anything else) and mere pleasure, as also between physical and intellectual pleasure. "
I can see where the two could overlap. I also feel that the modern interpretation of Stocism has given it a bad rap as it were.
Agreed. Being Stoic doesn't mean a lack of emotions. Rather it's to take the reality of life, accept it as it happens, and choose how the individual would react to the events. The current paradigm is to set ones philosophy about an unrealistic mindset and be "triggered" early and often when the real world intrudes on the fantasy.
Been there, done that, got the tshirt(stained with baby food, spit up and other things that will remain unmentioned).
In case anyone is wondering, I started this thread because I'm reading the book, "The Daily Stoic 366 meditations on Wisdom, Perseverance and Living" by Ryan Holiday & Stephen Hanselman. I didn't want to wait until January so I started with the December chapter. There are some interesting insights that have made me stop and think. There is also a website, www.dailystoic.com that has background on Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, and Epictetus.
