Agreed. In life, the path for future success often lies in denying immediate gratification. I think a superior pursuit is not happiness but contentment.

When you say external to the mind, but in that set of external things list the body, is that to say stoics believed the mind and body to be separate? Have there been attempts to adjust the philosophy in light of what we think we know about the mind being tied to the body/brain?

[removed]

Must we, though?

For all that she speaks in a reasonable and measured way, she endorses bad faith tactics. She straight up admits this - Malcolm X was good because he made MLK seem reasonable in comparison. Seeing nothing wrong with this kind of mercenary realpolitik is not conductive to getting anyone to ally with you.

>I think most of us have experienced at some point or another, where we find ourselves drawn to (whether sexually, romantically or just as a friend) someone that politics tells us we shouldn’t be drawn to, someone who has the wrong body shape, or the wrong race, or the wrong background, or the wrong class. I think most of us have had those experiences.

I have no earthly clue what the "wrong" traits of person to be attracted to alluded to are. She seems to take it as a given that people follow this notion of hierarchy by default. I don't have "dreams where we have sex with the wrong kinds of people" because I've never had a mental category of "wrong person" to begin with, and I don't think that's uncommon! The article mentions she's the daughter of an investment banker, and it shows.

>It’s the women who have to figure out how to feed their children and feed their husbands and so on.

Lol. Lmao, even.

[removed]

[removed]

What is a goal if not a desired outcome?

Is the idea that you say ‘I am working towards x, but I am indifferent as to whether x happens.’?

Which article did you read? I read someone that does actually question our current motivation, kind of a fundamental question don't you think?

>But why do anything if your only goal is for things to happen as they will?

Acceptance wasn't the goal of Epictetus and the Stoics. Acceptance is a useful tool, but if used to it's own end, rather than a tool for pursuing virtue, it is more appropriate for a doormat than a philosopher.

The Stoics sought to live a eudaimonic life -- that is to say, a life worth living. Most of their philosophy is centered on what makes a good human -- one who lives in accordance with human nature, and they observed that the human was a rational animal who thrived on society. Thus the conclusion of stoicism, in order to live a life worth living, we must treasure reason and pro-social action.

To build this kind of character, and thus to live a good life, is independent of station in life, the whims of Fortuna, and in a word, anything external to the mind (even the body). One can be rational and pro-social if they are a slave with a broken leg, or if they are a Roman emperor.

This leads to the understanding that we should not be disturbed by acts of Fortuna, because they are external to our character and indifferent to the pursuit of virtue. In fact, any act of fortune must be seen only as an opportunity to practice virtue, and neither good nor bad in the real sense. This is not to say that one situation cannot be preferred over the other, but it cannot be rationally desired.

Try to do nothing. It is not easy

its about attaching to an outcome, which causes suffering both if the outcome doesnt happen, or a delusion of control if it does.

it’s setting goals, having intentions, making choices, and instead of saying ‘i want this to happen’ you say ‘let’s see what happens’.

it’s curiosity, which ends in acceptance. acceptance that all of this shit is really random.

if you’ve ever done everything right and ‘failed’ then you can understand a bit easier.

>I guess I am struggling to see on what basis one would do anything (except perhaps the immediately gratifying) if one had no desires about future states of the world.

It's not that you can't work towards an aim, but just detach yourself from the expectation of outcomes. It's ok to want to become rich, so that you can help your near and dear ones, and work hard towards it. But always be aware that the outcome of your effort need not be plentiful always.

>Unlike Arjuna I can’t just ask a god what I should do!

You can read the Bhagvad Gita.

I disagree

Incorrect.

Definition: abstract theory with no basis in reality

Or

Definition: an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception

Both suggest we cannot ascertain the reality, however, as I suggest with bats we can indeed do so.

Your action contribute to things happening as they will, as does everyone else.

Through direct examination.

That's one form of stoicism, but it can also be different. For me, accepting my emotions is part of accepting the world, so stoicism is not necessarily about controlling them by subduction (even though it is often practiced or explained this way).

Stoicism is more about yourself not being controlled by your emotions.

He goes on to say the following:

> That is what makes it a very conflictive society. The fact that happiness has become fashionable is catastrophic, because everyone is being told to think about their psychological happiness and the relationship of happiness with justice, with ethics and with public happiness, is broken. It is a return to narcissism. The individual is being shut in their own happiness and breaking the bond with social happiness.

I haven't read his work, but it seems he's saying that forgetting the relationship between social happiness and psychological happiness in favor of overemphasizing the latter in isolation is the problem.

I just thought how "finding happiness" shouldn't feel so distant, the thing is this whole world telling you to find it, as you don't have it, as is something else, hard to reach, almost intangible. Is like this propaganda to sell something, you will not buy something if you already have it.

Life is hard, but as I see, dispair is something politics and marketing is feeding on from us. We are not living life, we are living inside an implanted message.

I guess I am struggling to see on what basis one would do anything (except perhaps the immediately gratifying) if one had no desires about future states of the world. Unlike Arjuna I can’t just ask a god what I should do!

A lot of philosophical traditions (and related religious traditions) have this problem. Spread the ideas widely enough, and you have a populace striving to just bear whatever is done to them.

[deleted]

very soft and cuddly. Does not question "western power" or anything else really. Just the sort of "philosopher" that might get promoted: ie toothless, questions nothing important, reinforces all the banal pressuppositions of our rotten society.
The breakdown in trust is real and merited- and so it is time to question again everything and build properly. But vested interests are more interested in pushing this sort of muddleheadedness

Because even with your best intentions and preparations, things will often not go your way. When you're detached from wanting certain outcomes, you're free from strife. It doesn't mean that you stop doing anything at all.

This is the same advice Krishna gives to Arjuna in Bhagvad Gita.

I understand what you mean. Remember that these were written in Ancient Greek/Latin , sometimes something doesn’t translate well or is interpreted in a confusing way.