Hierarchical social structure is the biggest source of human inequality. We need intelligent structural anarchy all over the place. However, most of the world is nowhere close to ready, because most people knowingly or unknowinly support the idea of being "above" and "below" someone - fighting their way up the social ladder is the central theme in the lives, views and dreams of many people. Religions and existing power structures are largely built around these hierarchical systems; Advocating end to hierarchy is like declaring a war against most institutions on Earth. Those who take comfort from inequality see "equality" as bad and anarchy as extrimism promoting the end of everything.

the article flits from idea to idea delivering soundbites but never truly investigating or interrogating that much. kind of annoying. I suppose one has to buy the book to get any deep answer?

There is no such thing as nothing.

[deleted]

I don’t know about stoicism, but controlling them could also mean using them as a tool in pursuit of a goal.

I think for your second example, loneliness should sting a little to act as motivation and provide a direction to seek change. But it’s not for wallowing in.

[removed]

"Who thrived in society" "are a slave" hmm

[removed]

Happiness isn't the goal. It's the reward.

Yeah well, we are already seeing quickly how bad this idea is

if such short text is no sufficient grouds for an attempt at such examination then what is it good for? can it really justify its own existence? is it long enough to develop or communicate her ideas enough? also first half of the text is pure flaunting rather than contextualizing so is not like they made the most out of such a short format anyway

You still set goals and try to achieve them (learn the piano for example). But if the outcome isn't what you set out for (you don't play Carnegie Hall) you don't lament it, but appreciate that you learned piano. Then set a new goal.

I’m not sure why he doesn’t just say, everyone being selfish/greedy (highly prioritizing personal happiness over happiness of the community) is a problem. He does criticize narcissism, but I’m not sure why he’s couching any of this in terms of happiness in the first place.

What is the most frustrating for me is watching almost everyone sinking in this quicksand trap, inteligent people also, believing they're miserable, growing in a self preservation selfshness, paralized agaist real issues because people feeling they are in such treats can't adress another peoples problem/society problems. Is the perfect scheme to control the masses.

Is so sad and enfuriating.

Doesnt controling your emotions by its very nature mean to subdue them?

Say if someone honking at me pisses me off, if my natural reaction is to get angry and want to flip them off, and I try to control myself and say "Oh its ok, there are just pissed drivers in the world, I shouldn't be angry", then I am subduing my natural emotions. And clearly, to an extent that isnt a bad thing. Otherwise we wouldnt have any self improvement.

However, if say relationships arent working out for me, or I cant seem to make friends and feel lonely, and if I have to tell myself "This is ok. This is a natural part of life. I should be content", etc I find that very damaging as it is really just a lie. I feel sad, angry, lonely etc on the inside as much as I tell myself that I am not, I just become far removed from understanding myself.

I feel that in end I end up as a person whose "ok with everything" and no personality. Negative emotions are just as important as positive ones.

I would like to further contextualise her perspectives for they appear valid and are very attractive. I especially appreciate her last paragraph where she hints at a possible method of reconciliation in the divided left. I will surely read more, thank you for presenting the article OP.

She didn't say you think these people are wrong, but politics does. According to her. I have no clue what she's on about though. I've never felt like politics were telling me who to be attracted to and if they were I wouldn't care.

I honestly do not see any use for this kind of hermeneutical critique. One short text is not sufficient grounds for an attempt at such an examination.

[removed]

>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.

Rightly so. You can't mobilize an ideology if everyone is content. You have to drum up discontent, feed lies, and push propaganda down the throat of society to make them feel threatened.

In a way, the article was discussing just this. How the desires of the powerful have been shaping the world.

A wonderful summary, thank you.

I think it’s more, “irrespective of your physical situation”, e.g., if you had a broken leg, or if you were born with a deformity, this wouldn’t necessarily restrict you from pursuing a life worth living.

I'm not sure about Stoicism, but in Advaita Vedanta, which does have a striking similarity to Stoicism, the mind and the body are considered separate identities operationally, but are considered one entity. The mind affects the body, and the body affects the mind.

I think the conflict causing the confusion here is that stoicism is meant to correct for the emotional mind, and acknowledges that humans are flawed and require over correcting. Stoicism doesn’t say that feelings are bad, but rather are something we can not directly control, and therefore we shouldn’t let them be involved in the rational thoughts of our day to day. A better way of phrasing your quotes is “I would personally prefer x to happen, but I know emotion prefers that outcome over logic, so instead I will pursue y, and will accept whatever outcome happens as fact”.

acceptance.

attachment is the lack of acceptance.

you set goals, visions, dreams.

you identify all the things that could make that true.

you set out to accomplish all of those things.

and whatever happens, happens.

you can be disappointed, but your pain will be temporary. suffering lasts for as long as we remain attached to an outcome, and often grows in intensity

here’s a simplification: ‘i want my parents to live to their 80s’ your dad dies at 50.
it is painful.
you then spend the rest of your days wishing he were still alive, and that he made it to 80. from 30-50, you spend your time attached to the idea that you want him to live until 80. worry, anxiety is the natural thing.

a dramatic example of our illusion of control.

while true we have more control in our lives than if/when someone dies, it’s not by much.