Thank you for watching! Let me know if you want me to talk about stoicism more, there's plenty more I have to say. As a sidenote, people angrily defending stoicism is rather ironic and I think speaks of their intellectual capacity and perhaps the degree to which they have engaged with this topic in good faith. They are clearly ideologues who can’t even live up to their own standards.
I don't know much about stoicism, but it seems to me that stoic virtues seem to help to be ethically consistent with whatever are your values at the moment. It won't help that much to determine if somethings good or bad, bad they are habits. And I think it kinda makes sense, romans already seemed to have and ordinary sense of the values they had as a collective, and the stoic virtues could be seen as a general rule of thumb to keep themselves straight on what they already belived to be good or bad. But I would say that in our times they could have been taken out context. The context in wich they were needed.
@elguardallavesdejaal in a general sense sure, but we can be more consistent by having actual ethical principles like say a principle of harm minimisation where we aim to maximise pleasure and minimise pain.
Your query regarding the Dichotomy of Control is thoroughly answered with the metaphor of the archer. The archer attempts to control his body to the best of his ability. As well as his control of the bow. Also his prediction of the arrows flight based upon what he can observe of wind conditions. However once he looses that arrow he understands that the environment and the unseen are now determining the fate of the arrow. Many stoics have answered this, and it isn't troubling. Anyone who says you can't control the arrow so don't even try is missing the point.
I think the mistake is thinking that things are always so clearly cut between things within our control and out of our control. For example, is the archer's ability to shoot a target within his control or out of his control? Well, in general, it is in his control because he can practice and get better, but when he takes an individual shot, it's no longer in his control. That is the point I was attempting to make, that the lines are not as clear cut as stoics tend to make them out to be. I also think that when we apply this framework in a broader context, say on a societal level, many do resort to a kind of fatalism far too readily and tend to think that there are far more things out of their control than is reasonable.
Virtue ethics does not try to tell you what to think is right, it motivates you to improve yourself and argues that the doing so will bring you closer to being a 'good' person.
@@ethanbenson In a sense? It seems quite literally true. The Stoics believed life is a system of refinement within the illusion of reality. Improving yourself in your environment is the point. Following a list of rules without understanding why they are rules isn't improving most of one's facets, it only improves the ability to be obedient. Stoic Perfection is not making the same mistake twice.
"Improving yourself within your environment." What if you live in an intrinsically evil environment? You'd merely be improving how good of a "cog" you are in an evil "machine."
@@bcubed72 The point is that there are no foundational principles and its about improving the self. If you become more hardworking while in an evil organization you will do more damage from a consequentialist point of view, the entire point however is that virtue ethics are not rooted into consequentialism in the first place so thats a stupid way to judge it. I could start talking about how it might be better to off certain carbon emitting populations for the good of the many, and then your perspective is suddenly shit because that is evil while it would also be a net improvement in welfare, making it justifiable. Virtue ethics =/ Consequentialism =/ Deontology... get a grip
If we don't know for sure the degree of control that we have, this lack of knowledge on its own is something outside our control. Stoicism is not a philosophy that has a strong metaphysical postulate because it doesn't need to, and it's never its main focus. Much like Buddhism, Stoicism's main objective is to achieve ataraxia. The trolley argument is also nonsense because the virtues are general guidelines, that don't deal with specific cases. In situations like this, you use your virtues to come up with an ethical decision. Or would you prefer a philosophy that tells you specifically what you should do in every possible situation? Because that is impossible. In any system of thought, dilemmas will always exist, unless we are certain the universe is deterministic, and we know exactly the laws of physics. Your entire analysis is quite shallow. If you are going to "debunk"a 2000-year-old philosophy, or claim that it "sucks", you should spend a little more time understanding what it is about first.
You are exactly right, with a single problem: For there to be a dilemma, you would need to have a guideline in the first place, that stand in opposition to another when applied to a specific case. As an example, in bio-/medical ethics, you have 4 guiding principles for ethics: autonomy, non-harm, beneficence, and justice. All of these are described further to give a closer understanding of these concepts instead of just making your own stuff up about them as you go - for example, justice refers to fair treatment of the people you have to consider (i.e. paying close attention to your first patient, while snoozing off at the last one would therefore be unethical, if you have a choice about it). After these concepts are established, you decide which of these principles takes priority on a case-by-case basis. - Do you limit someone's autonomy to make sure they don't harm someone else, or will you take that risk in favor of their personal freedom (dilemma between autonomy and avoid harm)? - Will you let a healthy patient occupy a bed on a station that a sick person could desperately need, or do you rat them out and break their trust in you as their therapist (dilemma between justice and beneficence)? - Do you pull the lever to avoid greater harm, or do you leave it, as to not doom the "currently safe" person (dilemma between non-harm and beneficence)? With these guidelines, I may not know the answer, but I do know what to consider - that's what makes them guidelines and I decide which one holds more weight in each specific circumstance. They give me the tools to justify my decisions based on them. How exactly does "courage" help me assess the situation to make my decision, when it takes courage for both - action and inaction? I can't argue to NOT pull the lever, if I orient myself on the "non-harm" principle, which points towards minimizing harm - it is clear what I would need to do, but it gets more complicated if I consider additional principles. How do any of the other virtues apply? I may strive for wisdom in my life, but what is and isn't wise is still based on some guiding principles, which stoicism does not provide. Is it good to strive for the things stoicism deems as virtues? Sure. Does stoicism provide the TOOLS to make ethical decisions? No - and that's the entire point of the video: Stoicism fails as an ethical system.
This is my exact point though, the fact it lacks strong guidance makes it a mediocre ethic, as you require a further ethic to justify any given action. I also completely reject your statement claiming I don’t understand stoicism. As noted in other comments, I literally considered myself a stoic for multiple years, I have read the big 3 books on stoicism, I have read plenty of secondary material. It isn’t as good as the bros online would have you believe. We’ve made so much progress in the years since the Hellenistic Age, and other than the aesthetics of adopting an ancient philosophy, I don’t see why so many people think it’s the bee’s knees. As best I can tell, the reason people are claiming I don’t get it is purely because I think it’s not as good as they think it is, so I must not get it because I don’t agree with them
@@ethanbenson No idea what online bros you are talking about as I don't dwelve in those circles. Maybe you did for 3 years that's why you know so much? I don't use stoicism as code of ethics because I have other tools to decide what is wrong from bad. Stoicism is a tool for yourself to be at peace and you considering yourself a stoic doesn't mean you understand it. I would say, that identifiying as certain ideology is a worse path to understand it since your ego is on the line. Your thumbnail says "stoicism is useless" which tells more about your lack of understanding than how "good" it's Stoicism. Maybe some people fall for the strong title on your video, but nobody who thinks for themselves would belive you actually practiced a philosophy for a whole 3 years just to suddenly realize is wrong and there is literally zero value in it because you can't solve the trolley dilemma with it. Nothing else to say here.
@@yaredreinarz3244 My thumbnail is admittedly hyperbolic for the clicks, not a statement I'd defend to the death. I never said the realisation was sudden or that the reason I stopped considering myself a stoic was because it doesn't give an answer to ethical dilemas like the trolley problem. I think this is a flaw of virtue ethics as a whole in fact. It's great you use stoicism for a form of self-peace, however, I think by saying that this is what you use it for, you necessarily admit to not being a stoic in the full sense, as it sounds like you adopt only a small aspect of it. Which is fine, I think that aspects around recognising the finitude of life are solid, however, if you use some other form of ethics, you are then not a stoic ethicist. I doubt you are a stoic in terms of metaphysics or epistemology either. So then, what part of you is stoic? If it is merely recognising that you are a limited person, then there are so many other philosophical systems which include this as a foundation. It isn't a uniquely stoic thing.
That's true of just about anything. We all have ideals that we fail to live up to. That doesn't mean that we should abandon the ideals. I'm not some super tall, mesomorphic chad, but I still believe that such a figure should be the male ideal and should not be replaced by some squatty, morbidly obese ectomorphic figure just because that is easier to actually attain.
I think stoicism isn't even understood by most these day. I don't have a full understanding, but what I can see is more akin to bro-icism than stoicism lol
The constant grasping of things being "within your control" vs "out of your control" is precisely the issue. It's a badly framed question and we'd be better off not thinking in these terms. Rather, what actions can you take that will help you embrace love and kindness towards yourself and others? "Control" is a moot point as free will is an indeterminable object like souls or deities.
@@off6848 Or maybe us "acting" as if we have freewill is precisely the issue and it is an illusion. When I am deeply engrossed in something I love, my actions come naturally as I have no self doubt or need for reflection. What is gained from constantly thinking about having free will?
Your question, "how can we differentiate what is and is not in our control" is answered through failure. If you've failed, whether by chance or by an opponent's will, then the thing was not in your control. We can differentiate what is and is not in our control by observation. Fuzzy borders do not negate categories. This system of differentiation applies not just to controlled/loosed but to anything with difference. For example, what colour is the sculpture in your first slide? Blue? White? Grey? Black? Can we neatly categorise it? Colours have fuzzy borders, with an aspect of each of these potential answers in it. But if we asked an artist to paint a copy of the slide, he will have to differentiate his pallette to do the job, and if he does a good job of differentiation then the copy will represent the slide with high fidelity.
I agree. My point is that it is a fuzzy border, but I don’t think we can have full knowledge of what is and is not in our control because there is always the possibility of some factor we didn’t consider before being different when we do the same thing twice. Of course, we can come up with generalisations, but I think it’s far more difficult to categorise these things and far more situational than the stoics tend to claim. In particular I think their distinction of internal being in your control and external being out of your control is completely wrong.
I think you're reaching very far in your examples. Firstly I feel like you're missing the point of it all. The dichotomy is how it applies to yourself and then the world around you. Not how the situations of the world apply to you. In your first example, of committing mass murder, which is a questionable comparison of how that affects us in the modern world. Neverless it is also questionably not within your control. Simply because your duty at the time of being a soldier in the army demanded it. I'm not going to write paragraphs of how they culturally lived to justify why if they failed to do such a thing could lead to their own death, or even their family. So no, your commander or emporer requested it, do it or die. After the action you can self reflect and see how it applies to you, and what you could or could not control. We can then separate our feeling of what we can control, were those orders awful? Yes. Could you, as the person do anything to change it? Not unless you wanted to die. Was it in your control? Not really. Secondly the trolley is an unrealistic situation to ever be in. The point is how it can apply to yourself. When driving to work, did you commit road rage? You could evaluate it that the person cutting you off was not in your control, it's unfortunate because you were late. However, could you have left earlier? Could you have prepared your morning better so you weren't in a rush? Could you have just not yelled? These are some of the questions a modern stoic reflects on, is how to apply these imperfect tools to help us cope and navigate the imperfect world by asking ourselves why we think the way we feel. If you can't identify why you're upset, or committing actions in impulse it first takes self reflection to understand change comes with yourself, then you apply it to the world. Not the other way around. Because we can't change the world and all the actions of the people in it, because we're living in it.
I appreciate the comment, however, I don’t think you understand how thought experiments work or why we use them in philosophy. They are purposefully extreme and unrealistic so that we can find the strengths and weaknesses of various theories in a way which is removed from ourselves so that we remove our own cultural prejudices and can evaluate a given theory purely on its own merits. In terms of the dichotomy, I think you cannot seperate it out in the way you claim because you act on the world and the world acts on you. I don’t see how you can avoid this. I agree the problems you raise are important to reflect on. My point is that to reach a conclusion, you cannot actually appeal to stoicism because it is too open in its recommendations. You ultimately must resort to some form of consequentialism or deontology. If you think I’m wrong, I’d love to do a debate on this topic. Just email me at ethanbensonyt@gmail.com and we can get into the weeds of it further
@@ethanbenson I reckon a lot of problems arise when you try to analyze a philosophy like the one of the stoics along the lines of rigorous analytical philosophy of the 20th century, because you look at it through the lens of a moral philosophy rather than ethics in the antique sense. Take, for example, thought experiments like the trolley problem. This issue reduces a moral dilemma to a base decision that leaves out a lot of aspects that would be important for a stoic. It was created with the notion of the split between consequentialist and deontological morality in mind. Even in a real-life example of the trolley problem, say a triage after an accident, it is unrealistic to reduce it to purely rational deliberation.
@AutumnSonderness I agree, although I would argue that this isn’t a good reason to then become a stoic, rather, it indicates that philosophy has come a long way in the past 2000 years and neglecting that progress entails adopting an antiquated system.
There is one thing I want to pick up from your comment: "The trolley problem is an unrealistic situation to ever be in". While this specific circumstance may be unlikely, we find ourselves very often in schematically identical situations. - As a clinical psychologist, for example, I come into contact with abusers. Once I know this fact about a client, do I "ignore the lever" (leave their spouse / family to suffer) or do I "pull the lever" (report the client to the authorities for criminal behavior)? - Something more relatable perhaps: Your colleagues are stressed out because a vital person has gone sick (the people are on the track and in harm's way). You could fill in for the sick person (take action), but miss an event that means a lot to your child (condemn someone else to a worse fate than before). - Another example: You see a homeless person, aching from hunger pains (person in harm's way). You are out of cash at the moment, but you are carrying a take-home meal that's supposed to be for a friend (third party), who's about to visit you. Will you give the person your friend's meal (act to help those in harms way, but negatively affect the third party)? The trolley problem always occurs when you are in a position to relieve a problem by intervening and harming a third party as a result. Putting people on rails just emphasizes the severity of a choice.
@@stammesbruder But all of the examples incorporate different aspects that the base trolley problem usually does not - I think this might be the gripe a lot of people have with the thought experiment.
How so? I’ve read through Meditations, The Enchiridion and Letters From a Stoic, multiple times. I have read plenty of secondary material as well. I used to consider myself a stoic in fact. What is it that I don’t get? Where does my critique fail?
@@ethanbenson They agree with you that stoicism sucks. They’re acting like a stoic just saying “you don’t get it” to make fun of how they don’t have an argument.
Addressing just the "trolley problem": there is nothing whatsoever saying you need to intervene in that situation at all. You can just leave (hit da bricks) nothing about this was set up by you or caused by you, and your own interaction with this problem is only when you find yourself in the position of the unfortunate decision maker. But you don't have to make one. You could say in counterargument, what if you were not able to leave, what if you were forced to choose then what would you do? I would say that is the same level of responsibilty as putting a gun to someone's head and deciding which of two people should live or die - which is really a reduced form of the trolley problem and even then you could still refuse to choose and take the bullet instead. Sometimes the element of courage is in saying "this is not my problem, none of this is my fault and I'm not going to let you make me take responsibilty for your actions" If the "trolley problem" is something you think about a lot, I'm going to guess you spend a lot of time on reddit. Hey otherwise good job nice video you seem like a cool guy but I think you need to reflect a bit on some of these blanket statements "yet I would guess nobody would say that is a right thing to do" hey maybe sometimes it is the right thing to do, ever considered that?
I spend no time on reddit. I study philosophy. You could leave, sure, but that is itself making a choice to let the 5 die. Obviously I have considered maybe sometimes it’s the right thing to do, but we’re talking about general principles and how well they work.
It is as you say - you do not NEED to intervene, but CHOOSING not to intervene, is in itself a choice. There is practically no difference in "not choosing" and "choosing not to intervene", as the result is inaction, which leads to the 5 people dying. Whether you view yourself as being a part of those circumstances or not is a form of justification - a reason as to why you did (not) intervene - but a justification is merely an explanation for a choice. There is no lack of a choice, once you are aware of a situation.
I think the issue with prescriptive philosophies is that it puts a boundary on how we think of any ethical situation. Take the trolly problem for example: you yourself said there are two options, either switch the track or don’t. Some people will say just walk away, but that’s essentially the same as not pulling the lever. Is this really all anyone can think to do? Why not try to stop the trolley? Why not slow it down and free the singular person before it hits him? Why not derail the trolley? It’s already an absurd situation, so if we’re going to think of it logically, why not come up with absurd solutions? Why not save everyone? I personally like stoicism because it encourages you to find the bounds of your ability yourself, instead of telling you where it thinks the bounds are. But I’m also a bit of a contrarian, so I’m more often than not going to go against anything that tells me how to live anyway, lol.
I think it’s great to think outside the box like this, however, thought experiments are designed as such to give you a limited number of solutions to try to put a given theory to the test. The point is precisely to see if a theory stands up to a really tough dilemma.
Because theres things you cannot control still lol. Would you like the question reframed? You are a random person inattentively walking up to a train track at night. You have zero knowledge or experience with trains. You see what appear to be 5 people apparently drunk after a party, laying on the tracks completely unconscious in their stupor. Your cries to them yield no results. 4 on one track and 1 on another. A train rounds a bend on the tracks that have the 4 people on them. The train will hit them in the next 5 seconds if you do not pull the lever. Do you pull the lever? Situations like this arise all the time. There is ZERO wiggle room for you. You have zero time or knowledge or resources. The entire point of the question is to see what you will do when you have no other options. You dont always have unlimited options in life. Sometimes you only have 1.
@@ethanbenson isn’t that kind of the problem though? Morals and ethics aren’t like material science. You can’t always have the same action and be able to reliably expect the same result. There are too many unknown variables. Prescriptive philosophy tells you ‘act this way to be a good person’, but how can one say that when the very concept of what makes a ‘good person’ is in contention? What is good? What actions can objectively qualify as good? Do you even want to be good? If so, why? The reason I like stoicism is because it doesn’t tell you act like this cause it’s the right way to act, but rather that it gives you the tools to take stock of yourself. To figure out what you want and the actions you are able to take to get there. Mind you, I’m not saying prescriptive philosophy shouldn’t exist. There are certainly some people who need a manual on how to human. That’s why most religions work so well. But for those who can think critically enough to poke holes in such thought processes, as I’m sure you are one, simply being told how to act isn’t really enough. Isn’t it better to have the tools to solve each problem yourself than to have to be told how to act in any situation? As an aside, I think the trolley problem is deeply flawed as a general moral/ethical test. It’s like asking someone how large the earth is, but they can only answer big or small.
@@morezombies9685 that framing of the question is actually worse. This situation wouldn’t happen just based on reality. Just laying it out, a train rounding a corner would be moving as slow as 10-20 mph, and there would be no situation where the engineer wouldn’t be able to see a gaggle of drunk people passed out before a 5 second to impact time. Even if that did happen, that’s far too close for a train to switch tracks. Even if we ignore all of the reality that goes into it, this is still a hypothetical snapshot where we can actually take all the time needed to think of a solution. The framing isn’t the issue here. It’s creating a problem specifically designed to be answered in the way or ways you want it to be answered. And if someone comes up with a solution you didn’t think of, you say, ‘No that’s not how that works! You can’t do that!’ Simply because it goes against how you’ve designed the question to be. Isn’t that a bit sophomoric? There are always other solutions. Whether you can think of them in a timely manner or not, in my opinion, is a personal issue, not a moral one
If you’re interested in exploring other systems of ethics, that don’t reduce individual lives (and their wellbeing) to a cold and callous calculus, then look into: the ethics of care.
Perhaps there is a difference then between "control" and "influence"? Although as you pointed out if you apply that consistently one not having control over himself is even worse for Stoicism. I had some vague notions about this that I had and still would consider valuable in my thinking, but this does seem way too shallow to have as a foundation.
This is a good point, although the word control is certainly used by the stoics (at least in the translations I have). But I think your suggestion is more practical
I would argue it has been beneficial in getting people interested in philosophy, but it’s benefit as a philosophy alone isn’t that great because, as mentioned in the video, it doesn’t really have any explanatory or prescriptive power when it comes to ethics. You need to resort to some other set of ethics to justify anything.
@@ethanbenson No, you don't. You just haven't learned thoroughly enough. One of the guiding principles in Stoicism is to refine society. You also have obligations to those fate has bound you to, and those you have taken oaths with. If you recall this you should be able to answer your Trolley Problem from the Stoic perspective.
@focast1825 this is true, however, what you miss is that this still does not answer how to improve society or say anything about what good actually is. As a sidenote, I think you assuming I don't know what I'm talking about just because we disagree isn't really a good faith way to approach this discussion.
I don’t need to know the technicalities of this. All I know is this stoic BS slowly breaks men and leaves them worse off overall, and they end up alone and unhappy.
would they start looking into philosophy if they were supper happy? I think you are looking at skewed statistics. It's sorta like women looking to be born again virgins in their later age but for men.
@@ethanbenson stoicism is what dudes turn to when they are emotionally incompetent so they block everything out, making them all emotional time bombs, because no one can do that forever. Practicing stoicism worsens mental health and aggravates mental illnesses already present. If a set of philosophies worsens the lives of the people who believe in it, it is obvious it’s not a good philosophy. I’m sure there’s many issues with the philosophy itself, but I’m not really interested. I see the result of it and that already dissuades me from giving a sht, on the topic of stoicism. It’s a fundamentally unserious way of life.
@@ethanbenson tbh I just see it as waylaid dudes larping around with an overtly ur-fascistic, machismo, nonsense, strong man fantasy… that both doesn’t exist and is a critically flawed path of life. And funnily, consequentially it’s just a covertly narcissistic way to intellectualise & jerk themselves off, because they otherwise have a STRONG lack of intelligence 🤣
If you don't vent in some way every once in a while you just going to end up bitter. And people are good at picking up on that, you just going to be know as the bitter old man in the end
@@biashacker that’s absolutely false. Consider that politics is philosophy, every narrative is philosophical, our approach to science and knowledge is based in philosophy. Every single mass movement, from civil rights to feminism, is derived from philosophy and the work of philosophers. To even speak of what is right or wrong is philosophical. The entire way we interact with the world is fundamentally philosophical.
@@ethanbenson So you say, and I do not much care what you think. One can argue all day about what philosophy is but it is the people that have the most power, money and influence that make the rules and control the world. Not some dimwitted philosopher. Do not respond. I will not read it. It would be a waste of my time - philosopher.
You see I think the thing you are missing is base values of Greek/Roman politheistic society. Being a good man to them is something different to being a good man from Christian perspective from which you are looking at it (willing or unwilling)
Also, you mixed wisdom and intelligence in you mass bomber example. A wise man would know the idea is bad,an intelligent would know how to accomplish it.
My point is that one could justify anything from those virtues. If you want to be relativistic about it that’s fine, my point is simply that this system of ethics is not explanatory of moral thinking nor is it prescriptive. Which leads me to conclude it’s a poor set of ethics
Adding an input doesnt mean you have control dude. If you like a girl and you ask her out whether she says yes or not isnt up to you. You are in control of your initial action and making that decision does effect the world around you, but that doesnt mean you 'control' the situation or outcome. Also, you miss the point of the ethical part of stoicism.
You are not in control of your initial action either. Everything you do depends on what happened seconds, minutes, days, years, and even millennia before it occurred. There are neurological processes you can’t control, hormones, genetics, environment and sensory stimuli. So no, your initial action is not in your control, you only have some sense of control.
Whether she says yes or no is indeed not up to you, but she cannot answer the question, if it is never posed. There are also long-term effects to consider. Her saying no now, does not necessitate that she won't reciprocate those feelings later on in life, and a situation may arise later on, that could only occur by your action of revealing your interest in her. If a situation won't ever occur, regardless of what you do, then you aren't in control. But if an outcome CAN change, based on your action, then you have a level of control.
@@yuanzaii I'd argue that's just semantics. This only becomes a contradiction if you assume that the self is somehow removed from your brain and the rest of the body. If you don't do that, than the "self" is those neurological processes (which are to a great part the result of those other things you mentioned). "Take control" can simply mean to have an active process to change or maintain a circumstance. You could very well still control your initial action... it would simply mean that it is automatic and self-regulated by - you guessed it - the self, which is indistinguishable from your brain activity. Under super-determinism in a monistic understanding, having a lack of control simply means that a taken initial action was undesired. If a taken action is desired, it was initiated under control.
@@ethanbenson Because the knock on effects of consequences is unknowable past the first order, it boils down to another type of virtue ethics just a more narrow one where the presupposition is that the highest virtue is doing what you think will lead to the best immediate consequence But there’s really no justification for believing that and also it’s just open ended for interpretation of what a good consequence would be, pretty much determined by the individual. Virtues at least have conceptual archetypes and definitions to act as guides or moral compasses. Generally for a functioning moral compass you want to work with eternal categories not feelings that can change on a whim. Courage for instance is always courage, it doesn’t matter how much society changes courage will never mean cowardice. You don’t have to get into intellectual debates about is courage actually good you can just observe in the world in praxis people will choose a courageous a person over a cowardly one it takes the philosophy out of the realm of the useless intellectual and into the real world where actions speak for themselves the rest is masturbation.
I’d need an entire video to get into each, but I think they have their pros and cons. Ultimately, given I am neither a buddhist nor a taoist, it should be fairly clear that I don’t think they hold up as philosophical systems, however, they do have some worthwhile ideas.
Thank you, this video was very informative! I think stoicism has gotten popular/trendy amongst men mainly due to how it lines up with modern masculinity and Andrew-Tate-like ideals such as the repression of emotions. I think most people aren’t too serious with it, it’s nice to be able to think of oneself as aligned with a philosophy as a signal of intellectualism and wisdom without having done any of the intellectual work. In other words, they’ve found the idea of stoicism to fashionly describe what they already picture themselves to be, subconsciously guided by masculinity and religious tropes, rather than arriving to it through thorough and introspective thought.
That was the point of stoicism it was supposed to be a practical praxis for men not an intellectual circle jerk so the criticism that it’s not precisely the intellectual circle jerk that goes nowhere that you think it should be is missing the point
@@off6848I'm just making an observation, I'm not saying it should be anything. I'm really not even talking about the true form of stoicism, moreso I am noting the social phenomenon of people using it to further be stuck in their ways of toxic masculinity. If you think arriving to a conclusion after carefully considering other options about how the world works is an intellectual circlejerk, so be it. If you think it is fine for men to have a term to strengthen their anchor to religion, their repression of emotions, and their "hustle mindset", so be it. To me, people using such a complex and intellectual term such as stoicism to describe ideas derived from being so unintellectual (being blindly influenced by your environment) IS the intellectual circlejerk.
Nonsense. What is in your control depends on your circumstances, however there’s one thing that’s always under your control: how you respond to the circumstances presented to you by life. Somethings that aren’t in my control are things like if a war starts, if a crisis occurs, if my love for someone else will be reciprocated or not. You should act accordingly to your nature, you will naturally gravitate towards the things you should do. The notion that all humans are equal and there’s a simple systematic way or process to how one should act is brainrot. There is however a limit to what one can do and theres clearly a moment where one meets what one cannot do hence what’s under your control and what isn’t under your control are well defined under those limits. Again this whole video is sheer nonsense by someone who doesn’t seem to lift weights and hence must hold a brainrotten understanding of the philosophy.
How you respond to the circumstances presented to you is to some extent within your control. It is not obvious that it is entirely within your control. You don't have control over your neurochemistry, for example, which plays a role in this. You also make the classic stoic mistake of the naturalistic fallacy. Something being natural has no bearing on if we ought to do it. You could argue it is natural to do all kinds of things that most people would say is not ethical. Your final point is ridiculous because, for one, lifting weights has no bearing on the topic at all, and for two, I record most of my videos after coming home from the gym. Am I the most jacked dude ever? No. But I don't care to be. I just stay relatively fit and exercise for enjoyment.
It seems to me, that Stoicism is more of a collection of strengths. Not a philosophy of ethics, and it leaves the ethics part away. One can be evil (pursuing "evil" virtues) and stoic, or saint and stoic. One can be evil but weak to do damage, or saint but weak to do any good.
It’s literally a virtue ethic. It does have a metaphysical and epistemological element to it as well, but what most people talk about is the ethics (how to act)
It doesn't leave the ethics away. They are covered in the first principles distinguishing Stoicism from the other Socratic schools. The definitions of ethics and virtues and even the definitions of those that make up the respective categories has changed over time. Reading Stoic philosophy in ancient Greek as a modern Greek speaker is easier than reading it in English, but even then definitions have become mangled over time.
Thank you for watching! Let me know if you want me to talk about stoicism more, there's plenty more I have to say.
As a sidenote, people angrily defending stoicism is rather ironic and I think speaks of their intellectual capacity and perhaps the degree to which they have engaged with this topic in good faith. They are clearly ideologues who can’t even live up to their own standards.
Any credibility you once had, you have no lost. Congratulations.
@@Th3L0wK1 how come?
@@ethanbenson you are outside of his control, elaborating is a waste of effort 😔
I don't know much about stoicism, but it seems to me that stoic virtues seem to help to be ethically consistent with whatever are your values at the moment. It won't help that much to determine if somethings good or bad, bad they are habits. And I think it kinda makes sense, romans already seemed to have and ordinary sense of the values they had as a collective, and the stoic virtues could be seen as a general rule of thumb to keep themselves straight on what they already belived to be good or bad. But I would say that in our times they could have been taken out context. The context in wich they were needed.
@elguardallavesdejaal in a general sense sure, but we can be more consistent by having actual ethical principles like say a principle of harm minimisation where we aim to maximise pleasure and minimise pain.
Your query regarding the Dichotomy of Control is thoroughly answered with the metaphor of the archer. The archer attempts to control his body to the best of his ability. As well as his control of the bow. Also his prediction of the arrows flight based upon what he can observe of wind conditions. However once he looses that arrow he understands that the environment and the unseen are now determining the fate of the arrow. Many stoics have answered this, and it isn't troubling.
Anyone who says you can't control the arrow so don't even try is missing the point.
I think the mistake is thinking that things are always so clearly cut between things within our control and out of our control. For example, is the archer's ability to shoot a target within his control or out of his control? Well, in general, it is in his control because he can practice and get better, but when he takes an individual shot, it's no longer in his control. That is the point I was attempting to make, that the lines are not as clear cut as stoics tend to make them out to be. I also think that when we apply this framework in a broader context, say on a societal level, many do resort to a kind of fatalism far too readily and tend to think that there are far more things out of their control than is reasonable.
Virtue ethics does not try to tell you what to think is right, it motivates you to improve yourself and argues that the doing so will bring you closer to being a 'good' person.
In a sense, sure
@@ethanbenson In a sense? It seems quite literally true. The Stoics believed life is a system of refinement within the illusion of reality. Improving yourself in your environment is the point. Following a list of rules without understanding why they are rules isn't improving most of one's facets, it only improves the ability to be obedient. Stoic Perfection is not making the same mistake twice.
"Improving yourself within your environment." What if you live in an intrinsically evil environment? You'd merely be improving how good of a "cog" you are in an evil "machine."
@@bcubed72 The point is that there are no foundational principles and its about improving the self. If you become more hardworking while in an evil organization you will do more damage from a consequentialist point of view, the entire point however is that virtue ethics are not rooted into consequentialism in the first place so thats a stupid way to judge it. I could start talking about how it might be better to off certain carbon emitting populations for the good of the many, and then your perspective is suddenly shit because that is evil while it would also be a net improvement in welfare, making it justifiable. Virtue ethics =/ Consequentialism =/ Deontology... get a grip
If we don't know for sure the degree of control that we have, this lack of knowledge on its own is something outside our control. Stoicism is not a philosophy that has a strong metaphysical postulate because it doesn't need to, and it's never its main focus. Much like Buddhism, Stoicism's main objective is to achieve ataraxia. The trolley argument is also nonsense because the virtues are general guidelines, that don't deal with specific cases. In situations like this, you use your virtues to come up with an ethical decision. Or would you prefer a philosophy that tells you specifically what you should do in every possible situation? Because that is impossible. In any system of thought, dilemmas will always exist, unless we are certain the universe is deterministic, and we know exactly the laws of physics.
Your entire analysis is quite shallow. If you are going to "debunk"a 2000-year-old philosophy, or claim that it "sucks", you should spend a little more time understanding what it is about first.
You are exactly right, with a single problem: For there to be a dilemma, you would need to have a guideline in the first place, that stand in opposition to another when applied to a specific case. As an example, in bio-/medical ethics, you have 4 guiding principles for ethics: autonomy, non-harm, beneficence, and justice. All of these are described further to give a closer understanding of these concepts instead of just making your own stuff up about them as you go - for example, justice refers to fair treatment of the people you have to consider (i.e. paying close attention to your first patient, while snoozing off at the last one would therefore be unethical, if you have a choice about it). After these concepts are established, you decide which of these principles takes priority on a case-by-case basis.
- Do you limit someone's autonomy to make sure they don't harm someone else, or will you take that risk in favor of their personal freedom (dilemma between autonomy and avoid harm)?
- Will you let a healthy patient occupy a bed on a station that a sick person could desperately need, or do you rat them out and break their trust in you as their therapist (dilemma between justice and beneficence)?
- Do you pull the lever to avoid greater harm, or do you leave it, as to not doom the "currently safe" person (dilemma between non-harm and beneficence)?
With these guidelines, I may not know the answer, but I do know what to consider - that's what makes them guidelines and I decide which one holds more weight in each specific circumstance. They give me the tools to justify my decisions based on them. How exactly does "courage" help me assess the situation to make my decision, when it takes courage for both - action and inaction? I can't argue to NOT pull the lever, if I orient myself on the "non-harm" principle, which points towards minimizing harm - it is clear what I would need to do, but it gets more complicated if I consider additional principles. How do any of the other virtues apply? I may strive for wisdom in my life, but what is and isn't wise is still based on some guiding principles, which stoicism does not provide. Is it good to strive for the things stoicism deems as virtues? Sure. Does stoicism provide the TOOLS to make ethical decisions? No - and that's the entire point of the video: Stoicism fails as an ethical system.
This is my exact point though, the fact it lacks strong guidance makes it a mediocre ethic, as you require a further ethic to justify any given action.
I also completely reject your statement claiming I don’t understand stoicism. As noted in other comments, I literally considered myself a stoic for multiple years, I have read the big 3 books on stoicism, I have read plenty of secondary material. It isn’t as good as the bros online would have you believe. We’ve made so much progress in the years since the Hellenistic Age, and other than the aesthetics of adopting an ancient philosophy, I don’t see why so many people think it’s the bee’s knees. As best I can tell, the reason people are claiming I don’t get it is purely because I think it’s not as good as they think it is, so I must not get it because I don’t agree with them
@@ethanbenson No idea what online bros you are talking about as I don't dwelve in those circles. Maybe you did for 3 years that's why you know so much? I don't use stoicism as code of ethics because I have other tools to decide what is wrong from bad. Stoicism is a tool for yourself to be at peace and you considering yourself a stoic doesn't mean you understand it. I would say, that identifiying as certain ideology is a worse path to understand it since your ego is on the line. Your thumbnail says "stoicism is useless" which tells more about your lack of understanding than how "good" it's Stoicism. Maybe some people fall for the strong title on your video, but nobody who thinks for themselves would belive you actually practiced a philosophy for a whole 3 years just to suddenly realize is wrong and there is literally zero value in it because you can't solve the trolley dilemma with it.
Nothing else to say here.
@@yaredreinarz3244 My thumbnail is admittedly hyperbolic for the clicks, not a statement I'd defend to the death. I never said the realisation was sudden or that the reason I stopped considering myself a stoic was because it doesn't give an answer to ethical dilemas like the trolley problem. I think this is a flaw of virtue ethics as a whole in fact. It's great you use stoicism for a form of self-peace, however, I think by saying that this is what you use it for, you necessarily admit to not being a stoic in the full sense, as it sounds like you adopt only a small aspect of it. Which is fine, I think that aspects around recognising the finitude of life are solid, however, if you use some other form of ethics, you are then not a stoic ethicist. I doubt you are a stoic in terms of metaphysics or epistemology either. So then, what part of you is stoic? If it is merely recognising that you are a limited person, then there are so many other philosophical systems which include this as a foundation. It isn't a uniquely stoic thing.
"Take care that you never treat the misanthropic as they treat mankind." - Marcus Aurelius.
Stoicism, to me, seems like a philosophy that is put on a pedestal by many, but practiced by few.
I agree. I think it sounds good initially, but if you think about it for an extended period of time, it becomes far less appealing
That's true of just about anything. We all have ideals that we fail to live up to. That doesn't mean that we should abandon the ideals. I'm not some super tall, mesomorphic chad, but I still believe that such a figure should be the male ideal and should not be replaced by some squatty, morbidly obese ectomorphic figure just because that is easier to actually attain.
I think stoicism isn't even understood by most these day. I don't have a full understanding, but what I can see is more akin to bro-icism than stoicism lol
Its an ideal.
Its supposed to work like that. Noone (except psychopaths) has full control over their emotions
@@Anon-f6jWhy do you think it's better to be taller? It's associated with lower life expectancy, etc
The constant grasping of things being "within your control" vs "out of your control" is precisely the issue. It's a badly framed question and we'd be better off not thinking in these terms. Rather, what actions can you take that will help you embrace love and kindness towards yourself and others? "Control" is a moot point as free will is an indeterminable object like souls or deities.
Freewill is necessarily true because we act as if we have freewill
@@off6848 Or maybe us "acting" as if we have freewill is precisely the issue and it is an illusion. When I am deeply engrossed in something I love, my actions come naturally as I have no self doubt or need for reflection. What is gained from constantly thinking about having free will?
Your question, "how can we differentiate what is and is not in our control" is answered through failure. If you've failed, whether by chance or by an opponent's will, then the thing was not in your control. We can differentiate what is and is not in our control by observation. Fuzzy borders do not negate categories. This system of differentiation applies not just to controlled/loosed but to anything with difference. For example, what colour is the sculpture in your first slide? Blue? White? Grey? Black? Can we neatly categorise it? Colours have fuzzy borders, with an aspect of each of these potential answers in it. But if we asked an artist to paint a copy of the slide, he will have to differentiate his pallette to do the job, and if he does a good job of differentiation then the copy will represent the slide with high fidelity.
I agree. My point is that it is a fuzzy border, but I don’t think we can have full knowledge of what is and is not in our control because there is always the possibility of some factor we didn’t consider before being different when we do the same thing twice. Of course, we can come up with generalisations, but I think it’s far more difficult to categorise these things and far more situational than the stoics tend to claim. In particular I think their distinction of internal being in your control and external being out of your control is completely wrong.
I think you're reaching very far in your examples.
Firstly I feel like you're missing the point of it all. The dichotomy is how it applies to yourself and then the world around you. Not how the situations of the world apply to you.
In your first example, of committing mass murder, which is a questionable comparison of how that affects us in the modern world. Neverless it is also questionably not within your control. Simply because your duty at the time of being a soldier in the army demanded it. I'm not going to write paragraphs of how they culturally lived to justify why if they failed to do such a thing could lead to their own death, or even their family. So no, your commander or emporer requested it, do it or die.
After the action you can self reflect and see how it applies to you, and what you could or could not control.
We can then separate our feeling of what we can control, were those orders awful? Yes. Could you, as the person do anything to change it? Not unless you wanted to die. Was it in your control? Not really.
Secondly the trolley is an unrealistic situation to ever be in.
The point is how it can apply to yourself.
When driving to work, did you commit road rage? You could evaluate it that the person cutting you off was not in your control, it's unfortunate because you were late.
However, could you have left earlier? Could you have prepared your morning better so you weren't in a rush? Could you have just not yelled?
These are some of the questions a modern stoic reflects on, is how to apply these imperfect tools to help us cope and navigate the imperfect world by asking ourselves why we think the way we feel.
If you can't identify why you're upset, or committing actions in impulse it first takes self reflection to understand change comes with yourself, then you apply it to the world. Not the other way around.
Because we can't change the world and all the actions of the people in it, because we're living in it.
I appreciate the comment, however, I don’t think you understand how thought experiments work or why we use them in philosophy. They are purposefully extreme and unrealistic so that we can find the strengths and weaknesses of various theories in a way which is removed from ourselves so that we remove our own cultural prejudices and can evaluate a given theory purely on its own merits.
In terms of the dichotomy, I think you cannot seperate it out in the way you claim because you act on the world and the world acts on you. I don’t see how you can avoid this.
I agree the problems you raise are important to reflect on. My point is that to reach a conclusion, you cannot actually appeal to stoicism because it is too open in its recommendations. You ultimately must resort to some form of consequentialism or deontology.
If you think I’m wrong, I’d love to do a debate on this topic. Just email me at ethanbensonyt@gmail.com and we can get into the weeds of it further
@@ethanbenson I reckon a lot of problems arise when you try to analyze a philosophy like the one of the stoics along the lines of rigorous analytical philosophy of the 20th century, because you look at it through the lens of a moral philosophy rather than ethics in the antique sense. Take, for example, thought experiments like the trolley problem. This issue reduces a moral dilemma to a base decision that leaves out a lot of aspects that would be important for a stoic. It was created with the notion of the split between consequentialist and deontological morality in mind. Even in a real-life example of the trolley problem, say a triage after an accident, it is unrealistic to reduce it to purely rational deliberation.
@AutumnSonderness I agree, although I would argue that this isn’t a good reason to then become a stoic, rather, it indicates that philosophy has come a long way in the past 2000 years and neglecting that progress entails adopting an antiquated system.
There is one thing I want to pick up from your comment: "The trolley problem is an unrealistic situation to ever be in".
While this specific circumstance may be unlikely, we find ourselves very often in schematically identical situations.
- As a clinical psychologist, for example, I come into contact with abusers. Once I know this fact about a client, do I "ignore the lever" (leave their spouse / family to suffer) or do I "pull the lever" (report the client to the authorities for criminal behavior)?
- Something more relatable perhaps: Your colleagues are stressed out because a vital person has gone sick (the people are on the track and in harm's way). You could fill in for the sick person (take action), but miss an event that means a lot to your child (condemn someone else to a worse fate than before).
- Another example: You see a homeless person, aching from hunger pains (person in harm's way). You are out of cash at the moment, but you are carrying a take-home meal that's supposed to be for a friend (third party), who's about to visit you. Will you give the person your friend's meal (act to help those in harms way, but negatively affect the third party)?
The trolley problem always occurs when you are in a position to relieve a problem by intervening and harming a third party as a result. Putting people on rails just emphasizes the severity of a choice.
@@stammesbruder But all of the examples incorporate different aspects that the base trolley problem usually does not - I think this might be the gripe a lot of people have with the thought experiment.
Guess you just don't get it dude.
How so? I’ve read through Meditations, The Enchiridion and Letters From a Stoic, multiple times. I have read plenty of secondary material as well. I used to consider myself a stoic in fact. What is it that I don’t get? Where does my critique fail?
@@ethanbensonthey’re being sarcastic
@@donttrendonme No he really does not get it.
@@ethanbenson They agree with you that stoicism sucks. They’re acting like a stoic just saying “you don’t get it” to make fun of how they don’t have an argument.
Fair enough hahaha, always difficult to tell through text
Why do all the "bad philosophies" within an moral framework, always have cool names? Nihilism, Stoicism etc etc 😭
Hahaha I guess if your ideas are mid, it’s important to have good branding
Addressing just the "trolley problem": there is nothing whatsoever saying you need to intervene in that situation at all. You can just leave (hit da bricks) nothing about this was set up by you or caused by you, and your own interaction with this problem is only when you find yourself in the position of the unfortunate decision maker. But you don't have to make one. You could say in counterargument, what if you were not able to leave, what if you were forced to choose then what would you do? I would say that is the same level of responsibilty as putting a gun to someone's head and deciding which of two people should live or die - which is really a reduced form of the trolley problem and even then you could still refuse to choose and take the bullet instead.
Sometimes the element of courage is in saying "this is not my problem, none of this is my fault and I'm not going to let you make me take responsibilty for your actions"
If the "trolley problem" is something you think about a lot, I'm going to guess you spend a lot of time on reddit. Hey otherwise good job nice video you seem like a cool guy but I think you need to reflect a bit on some of these blanket statements "yet I would guess nobody would say that is a right thing to do" hey maybe sometimes it is the right thing to do, ever considered that?
I spend no time on reddit. I study philosophy.
You could leave, sure, but that is itself making a choice to let the 5 die.
Obviously I have considered maybe sometimes it’s the right thing to do, but we’re talking about general principles and how well they work.
It is as you say - you do not NEED to intervene, but CHOOSING not to intervene, is in itself a choice. There is practically no difference in "not choosing" and "choosing not to intervene", as the result is inaction, which leads to the 5 people dying. Whether you view yourself as being a part of those circumstances or not is a form of justification - a reason as to why you did (not) intervene - but a justification is merely an explanation for a choice. There is no lack of a choice, once you are aware of a situation.
I think the issue with prescriptive philosophies is that it puts a boundary on how we think of any ethical situation. Take the trolly problem for example: you yourself said there are two options, either switch the track or don’t. Some people will say just walk away, but that’s essentially the same as not pulling the lever. Is this really all anyone can think to do? Why not try to stop the trolley? Why not slow it down and free the singular person before it hits him? Why not derail the trolley? It’s already an absurd situation, so if we’re going to think of it logically, why not come up with absurd solutions? Why not save everyone? I personally like stoicism because it encourages you to find the bounds of your ability yourself, instead of telling you where it thinks the bounds are. But I’m also a bit of a contrarian, so I’m more often than not going to go against anything that tells me how to live anyway, lol.
I think it’s great to think outside the box like this, however, thought experiments are designed as such to give you a limited number of solutions to try to put a given theory to the test. The point is precisely to see if a theory stands up to a really tough dilemma.
Because theres things you cannot control still lol. Would you like the question reframed?
You are a random person inattentively walking up to a train track at night. You have zero knowledge or experience with trains. You see what appear to be 5 people apparently drunk after a party, laying on the tracks completely unconscious in their stupor. Your cries to them yield no results. 4 on one track and 1 on another. A train rounds a bend on the tracks that have the 4 people on them. The train will hit them in the next 5 seconds if you do not pull the lever. Do you pull the lever?
Situations like this arise all the time. There is ZERO wiggle room for you. You have zero time or knowledge or resources. The entire point of the question is to see what you will do when you have no other options. You dont always have unlimited options in life. Sometimes you only have 1.
@@ethanbenson isn’t that kind of the problem though? Morals and ethics aren’t like material science. You can’t always have the same action and be able to reliably expect the same result. There are too many unknown variables. Prescriptive philosophy tells you ‘act this way to be a good person’, but how can one say that when the very concept of what makes a ‘good person’ is in contention? What is good? What actions can objectively qualify as good? Do you even want to be good? If so, why? The reason I like stoicism is because it doesn’t tell you act like this cause it’s the right way to act, but rather that it gives you the tools to take stock of yourself. To figure out what you want and the actions you are able to take to get there.
Mind you, I’m not saying prescriptive philosophy shouldn’t exist. There are certainly some people who need a manual on how to human. That’s why most religions work so well. But for those who can think critically enough to poke holes in such thought processes, as I’m sure you are one, simply being told how to act isn’t really enough. Isn’t it better to have the tools to solve each problem yourself than to have to be told how to act in any situation?
As an aside, I think the trolley problem is deeply flawed as a general moral/ethical test. It’s like asking someone how large the earth is, but they can only answer big or small.
@@morezombies9685 that framing of the question is actually worse. This situation wouldn’t happen just based on reality. Just laying it out, a train rounding a corner would be moving as slow as 10-20 mph, and there would be no situation where the engineer wouldn’t be able to see a gaggle of drunk people passed out before a 5 second to impact time. Even if that did happen, that’s far too close for a train to switch tracks. Even if we ignore all of the reality that goes into it, this is still a hypothetical snapshot where we can actually take all the time needed to think of a solution. The framing isn’t the issue here. It’s creating a problem specifically designed to be answered in the way or ways you want it to be answered. And if someone comes up with a solution you didn’t think of, you say, ‘No that’s not how that works! You can’t do that!’ Simply because it goes against how you’ve designed the question to be. Isn’t that a bit sophomoric? There are always other solutions. Whether you can think of them in a timely manner or not, in my opinion, is a personal issue, not a moral one
@@drewbigan3688 are you autistic?
If you’re interested in exploring other systems of ethics, that don’t reduce individual lives (and their wellbeing) to a cold and callous calculus, then look into: the ethics of care.
Perhaps there is a difference then between "control" and "influence"? Although as you pointed out if you apply that consistently one not having control over himself is even worse for Stoicism.
I had some vague notions about this that I had and still would consider valuable in my thinking, but this does seem way too shallow to have as a foundation.
This is a good point, although the word control is certainly used by the stoics (at least in the translations I have). But I think your suggestion is more practical
Its not useless if it has been beneficial.
I would argue it has been beneficial in getting people interested in philosophy, but it’s benefit as a philosophy alone isn’t that great because, as mentioned in the video, it doesn’t really have any explanatory or prescriptive power when it comes to ethics. You need to resort to some other set of ethics to justify anything.
@@ethanbenson No, you don't. You just haven't learned thoroughly enough. One of the guiding principles in Stoicism is to refine society. You also have obligations to those fate has bound you to, and those you have taken oaths with. If you recall this you should be able to answer your Trolley Problem from the Stoic perspective.
@focast1825 this is true, however, what you miss is that this still does not answer how to improve society or say anything about what good actually is. As a sidenote, I think you assuming I don't know what I'm talking about just because we disagree isn't really a good faith way to approach this discussion.
"It is completely meaningless." much like your life and humanity as a whole
I don’t need to know the technicalities of this.
All I know is this stoic BS slowly breaks men and leaves them worse off overall, and they end up alone and unhappy.
This does certainly seem to be a trend where it’s the most unhappy people who claim to be stoics. But I’m unsure if it’s a symptom or a cause.
You're thinking of RUclips stoicism not Stoicism. Andrew Tate is not a stoic.
would they start looking into philosophy if they were supper happy? I think you are looking at skewed statistics.
It's sorta like women looking to be born again virgins in their later age but for men.
@@ethanbenson stoicism is what dudes turn to when they are emotionally incompetent so they block everything out, making them all emotional time bombs, because no one can do that forever.
Practicing stoicism worsens mental health and aggravates mental illnesses already present.
If a set of philosophies worsens the lives of the people who believe in it, it is obvious it’s not a good philosophy.
I’m sure there’s many issues with the philosophy itself, but I’m not really interested. I see the result of it and that already dissuades me from giving a sht, on the topic of stoicism.
It’s a fundamentally unserious way of life.
@@ethanbenson tbh I just see it as waylaid dudes larping around with an overtly ur-fascistic, machismo, nonsense, strong man fantasy… that both doesn’t exist and is a critically flawed path of life.
And funnily, consequentially it’s just a covertly narcissistic way to intellectualise & jerk themselves off, because they otherwise have a STRONG lack of intelligence 🤣
If you don't vent in some way every once in a while you just going to end up bitter. And people are good at picking up on that, you just going to be know as the bitter old man in the end
I agree, but what does any of this having to do with venting?
I find philosophy to be much like religious evangelism. Sounds good but has little influence on society.
@@biashacker that’s absolutely false. Consider that politics is philosophy, every narrative is philosophical, our approach to science and knowledge is based in philosophy. Every single mass movement, from civil rights to feminism, is derived from philosophy and the work of philosophers. To even speak of what is right or wrong is philosophical. The entire way we interact with the world is fundamentally philosophical.
@@ethanbenson So you say, and I do not much care what you think. One can argue all day about what philosophy is but it is the people that have the most power, money and influence that make the rules and control the world. Not some dimwitted philosopher. Do not respond. I will not read it. It would be a waste of my time - philosopher.
@@biashacker 😂
You see I think the thing you are missing is base values of Greek/Roman politheistic society.
Being a good man to them is something different to being a good man from Christian perspective from which you are looking at it (willing or unwilling)
Also, you mixed wisdom and intelligence in you mass bomber example. A wise man would know the idea is bad,an intelligent would know how to accomplish it.
My point is that one could justify anything from those virtues. If you want to be relativistic about it that’s fine, my point is simply that this system of ethics is not explanatory of moral thinking nor is it prescriptive. Which leads me to conclude it’s a poor set of ethics
@@ethanbenson because it's not a full moral system. It's like an add on to already existing value system.
@AnthonySmith-x5z I agree that necessarily must be the case
Adding an input doesnt mean you have control dude. If you like a girl and you ask her out whether she says yes or not isnt up to you. You are in control of your initial action and making that decision does effect the world around you, but that doesnt mean you 'control' the situation or outcome.
Also, you miss the point of the ethical part of stoicism.
It means you have some degree of control. Not complete control of course, but some amount of control.
I’d love to hear why I missed the point as well.
You are not in control of your initial action either. Everything you do depends on what happened seconds, minutes, days, years, and even millennia before it occurred. There are neurological processes you can’t control, hormones, genetics, environment and sensory stimuli. So no, your initial action is not in your control, you only have some sense of control.
Whether she says yes or no is indeed not up to you, but she cannot answer the question, if it is never posed.
There are also long-term effects to consider. Her saying no now, does not necessitate that she won't reciprocate those feelings later on in life, and a situation may arise later on, that could only occur by your action of revealing your interest in her.
If a situation won't ever occur, regardless of what you do, then you aren't in control. But if an outcome CAN change, based on your action, then you have a level of control.
@@yuanzaii I'd argue that's just semantics. This only becomes a contradiction if you assume that the self is somehow removed from your brain and the rest of the body. If you don't do that, than the "self" is those neurological processes (which are to a great part the result of those other things you mentioned). "Take control" can simply mean to have an active process to change or maintain a circumstance. You could very well still control your initial action... it would simply mean that it is automatic and self-regulated by - you guessed it - the self, which is indistinguishable from your brain activity. Under super-determinism in a monistic understanding, having a lack of control simply means that a taken initial action was undesired. If a taken action is desired, it was initiated under control.
Can you study what a free spirit is and do a video eventually ? - THANKS
Maybe, although I’m not sure I know what a free spirit is really beyond the colloquial term
Consequentialism is the weakest
How come?
@@ethanbenson Because the knock on effects of consequences is unknowable past the first order, it boils down to another type of virtue ethics just a more narrow one where the presupposition is that the highest virtue is doing what you think will lead to the best immediate consequence
But there’s really no justification for believing that and also it’s just open ended for interpretation of what a good consequence would be, pretty much determined by the individual.
Virtues at least have conceptual archetypes and definitions to act as guides or moral compasses. Generally for a functioning moral compass you want to work with eternal categories not feelings that can change on a whim.
Courage for instance is always courage, it doesn’t matter how much society changes courage will never mean cowardice.
You don’t have to get into intellectual debates about is courage actually good you can just observe in the world in praxis people will choose a courageous a person over a cowardly one it takes the philosophy out of the realm of the useless intellectual and into the real world where actions speak for themselves the rest is masturbation.
Do Epicureanism
@@AwakenZen perhaps at some point
Thiughts on Buddhism and Taoism
I’d need an entire video to get into each, but I think they have their pros and cons. Ultimately, given I am neither a buddhist nor a taoist, it should be fairly clear that I don’t think they hold up as philosophical systems, however, they do have some worthwhile ideas.
Thank you, this video was very informative! I think stoicism has gotten popular/trendy amongst men mainly due to how it lines up with modern masculinity and Andrew-Tate-like ideals such as the repression of emotions. I think most people aren’t too serious with it, it’s nice to be able to think of oneself as aligned with a philosophy as a signal of intellectualism and wisdom without having done any of the intellectual work. In other words, they’ve found the idea of stoicism to fashionly describe what they already picture themselves to be, subconsciously guided by masculinity and religious tropes, rather than arriving to it through thorough and introspective thought.
That was the point of stoicism it was supposed to be a practical praxis for men not an intellectual circle jerk so the criticism that it’s not precisely the intellectual circle jerk that goes nowhere that you think it should be is missing the point
@@off6848I'm just making an observation, I'm not saying it should be anything. I'm really not even talking about the true form of stoicism, moreso I am noting the social phenomenon of people using it to further be stuck in their ways of toxic masculinity. If you think arriving to a conclusion after carefully considering other options about how the world works is an intellectual circlejerk, so be it. If you think it is fine for men to have a term to strengthen their anchor to religion, their repression of emotions, and their "hustle mindset", so be it. To me, people using such a complex and intellectual term such as stoicism to describe ideas derived from being so unintellectual (being blindly influenced by your environment) IS the intellectual circlejerk.
We don't care.
You must care, you bothered to click on the video and to comment
Nonsense.
What is in your control depends on your circumstances, however there’s one thing that’s always under your control: how you respond to the circumstances presented to you by life.
Somethings that aren’t in my control are things like if a war starts, if a crisis occurs, if my love for someone else will be reciprocated or not.
You should act accordingly to your nature, you will naturally gravitate towards the things you should do.
The notion that all humans are equal and there’s a simple systematic way or process to how one should act is brainrot. There is however a limit to what one can do and theres clearly a moment where one meets what one cannot do hence what’s under your control and what isn’t under your control are well defined under those limits.
Again this whole video is sheer nonsense by someone who doesn’t seem to lift weights and hence must hold a brainrotten understanding of the philosophy.
How you respond to the circumstances presented to you is to some extent within your control. It is not obvious that it is entirely within your control. You don't have control over your neurochemistry, for example, which plays a role in this.
You also make the classic stoic mistake of the naturalistic fallacy. Something being natural has no bearing on if we ought to do it. You could argue it is natural to do all kinds of things that most people would say is not ethical.
Your final point is ridiculous because, for one, lifting weights has no bearing on the topic at all, and for two, I record most of my videos after coming home from the gym. Am I the most jacked dude ever? No. But I don't care to be. I just stay relatively fit and exercise for enjoyment.
It seems to me, that Stoicism is more of a collection of strengths. Not a philosophy of ethics, and it leaves the ethics part away.
One can be evil (pursuing "evil" virtues) and stoic, or saint and stoic. One can be evil but weak to do damage, or saint but weak to do any good.
It’s literally a virtue ethic. It does have a metaphysical and epistemological element to it as well, but what most people talk about is the ethics (how to act)
It doesn't leave the ethics away. They are covered in the first principles distinguishing Stoicism from the other Socratic schools. The definitions of ethics and virtues and even the definitions of those that make up the respective categories has changed over time. Reading Stoic philosophy in ancient Greek as a modern Greek speaker is easier than reading it in English, but even then definitions have become mangled over time.
@@focast1825 looks like I need to read it. I don't speak Greek though. English it must be.
I see notification from @nicktheking12345, but can't read the whole. Was it moderated out?