I can’t speak about eastern philosophies, but I can contribute to stoicism.
Stoicism and Epicureanism are seen as rival schools, but they really aren’t. Zeno and Epicurus had a ton of respect for each other. They both have the same goal - to minimize pain.
Stoicism does this by finding a calm place by prioritizing being virtuous, and treating painful things and pleasurable things with indifference. This always tied into lifting for me, since I was chasing a positive goal, and would alternating be hurt or be hedonistic (looking at you, DOMS and huge pwo meals).
And hedonism is not Epicurean. His idea was that we should minimize pain by focusing on what makes us happy and avoiding painful situations. For example, cheating on your partner is to be avoided, even though it causes short-term pleasure, it causes a long-term pain. That person in the gym would be more like an athlete who enjoys their sport, rather then the stoic lifter for whom lifting is the goal in and of itself.
Neither of those philosophies had an afterlife, which I think makes them potent and relevant. You only have this life - don’t squander it expecting a reboot.
Hope that was helpful, maybe some better-informed people can chime in on the other philosophies.
I haven’t studied philosophy in any official capacity but as mentioned earlier I am a fan of stoicism. I think it’s an interesting outlook on life that boils down to not getting lost when either up or down, equally. Keep an even, objective keel and work through everything with the end goal in mind. It’s simple but powerful.
“Meditations”, by Marcus Aurelius, is a great read. Thoughts straight from the horses mouth without alteration or taught interpretation, no matter how scholarly.
I think it does serve a reader well to understand Aurelius’ life and the extreme challenges he faced however, for context. He was likely a “dead inside” kind of guy who managed to channel his pain in to conquest and I’m sure modern psychology would have a field day on misplacement, projection et cetera so keep in mind the philosophy comes from brokenness, yet offers interesting insights on inner strength.
Some people seem to percieve stoicism itself as being dead inside. Stillness in all situations and all that. I think that’s a complete misinterpretation from them guys though.
I think all philosophy, or growth, comes from brokenness. I don’t disagree with you, I just think that we all have no choice but to adapt to our situations and stoicism is the blueprint to do that.
I don’t participate in philosophy or discussion about it normally, and found stoicism sort of accidentally. I couldn’t tell you what prevailing thought around it is, but I’m not surprised to hear this and it does seem like an easy conclusion to come to, obviously, lol.
I agree that the crux isn’t necessarily a dead inside view, but one of self-control, within a chosen course of action… I just think it’s important to understand that Aurelius did have significant hardship personally through the loss of a wife and multiple children and I’m sure it plays in to his trained “unfeeling” outlook. He also reigned during a period of war, shifting culture and plague that would’ve made Covid look like child’s play when accounting for population size and there’s a lot of wisdom in ruling through both hardship & victory to glean.
I can’t agree. I do think most prominent philosophies do, and religions, because most humans struggle through life and need something bigger to fold in to, but there are philosophies of abundance, hedonism et cetera that play in to keeping the good times rolling. It’s just not practical for the majority so not widely adopted.
100%. Life isn’t easy, and if we find something to lean on to help us through any of it, then great.
FWIW. I think stoicism is wonderful. Ideally, taking lessons from it and other philsophies to form your own little headspace is probably the best bet. Sadly, being all in on something can create it’s own problems. I do think that stoicism leads to more realists than the abundance stuff though. I’m all for it, really I am, but to go with my original statement I think accepting and dealing with hardships and finding their value serves most of us better than avoiding it or only focusing on the good. Sometimes the best goods and can found in the bads. Hedonism will tell us that bad stuff has no value, I just can’t get on board with that.
Disclaimer: I don’t know what the hell I’m on about.
I generally agree. But, like stoicism, I think abundance is misapplied. It’s not a magic spell to just successfully wish for and “manifest” wealth from a vibrating universe or whatever. That’s horeshit, pot of gold at the end of the rainbow wishful thinking. Traditional philosophies and really even common sense are much better for achieving real success through life.
But, for people who do have significant resources and are “above the struggle” so to speak, life is different. There are still illnesses, deaths, personal betrayals et cetera to contend with, but the need for an emotional crutch is limited and focus can shift to collecting experiences and living “now” given basic needs and more are already met for the long haul. This may not have an ancient initiatory school of thought around it, but there is a cultural difference between monied and especially old money people and the rest, world over, with its own outlooks, approaches and beliefs rooted in maintaining and gaining more. It just won’t be mainstream.
I can relate to that. My later in lifes work (personally) has been to become responsive instead of reactive.
Like first part of life was full of destructive events and reactions to them, both internally and externally.
Part 2 was finding out that I was being controlled by people, places, and events that are long gone, dead, and over (Reactive), and how that affected my life.
Part 3 is finding the ways that I can change what I do and how I do things so that I’m responsive to people and events in a way that moves me forward in life (responsive), instead of standing still or going backwards.
I am not surprised that Stoicism has dominated this thread. I was introduced to it first, then got reading some Secular Buddhism stuff, then flow into the Tao which resonates for me most because I do believe in some supreme architect of the universe, or at least in the sacred geometry of nature - if you can’t see god in everything, you can’t see god in anything type of woo woo.
Vipassana is also known as insight meditation, was taught by Guatama Buddha (allegedly). Lao Tzu was (Taoism) was a contemporary of the Buddha so a lot of similarities.
Taoism mirrors stoicism in a lot of ways - go with the flow, bend so you don’t break. Vipassana emphasizes the impermenance of things in life, and the interdependence. If things are impermanent, be patient and they will change (this too shall pass).
The “rebirth”, codified in many ways through human existence.
Sorry to hear about the initial rough patches. I think stoicism has been popular for so long because it can hit people “where they are”, and it’s always about channeling and looking forward.
It’s interesting to see correlations and similarities across seemingly totally different cultures. As a general comment. I’m not familiar with most philosophies, especially eastern.
I guess we are all human in the end and will ultimately wind up expressing ourselves in a recognizable fashion. I also wonder how trade, the Silk Road and likely others lost to history have played a role.
You see philosophy and even very specific religious texts and stories resurface throughout history, under different brands. The Mesopotamian region is an interesting one too. Islam, Judaism and then of course Christianity all feel like rewrites of Zoroastrianism, codifying the even more ancient Sumerian beliefs in the geographical region.
I suppose it could be god showing his fingerprint in all things, but I have a hard time believing in the unseeable “by faith” supernatural and see our collective progression as a story we are still writing.
Sacred geometry is very interesting, but I see physics at play here, even if not quite fully defined yet.
Yeah, thanks. I think everybody has them at some time and in some form or intensity.
My reaction to being and feeling very small and weak was to get bigger, stronger, and good at violence. Maybe too good. Too often. Having gone through it all, now I’m just confident that I can handle people if needed. No need to show them.
Same with feelings of belonging, greater than/less than, a lot of the social development stuff that gets mangled along the way.
Its funny that you mentioned psychology in regard to Aurelius, because my last therapist really uses some very fundamentally stoic concepts to help people gain control over their emotions and behaviors.
There is some really neat stuff built in to the universe that I occasionally geek out on.
Fractal patterns and Fibonacci sequences are my favorites, along with segments and divisions of shapes & planes. And conic sections. They’re just so neat algebraically. I guess that all feeds into aesthetics for me.
That’s interesting. He definitely gives some insight in to self-management through difficulty. It really is pretty incredible to read his “Meditations” after researching his personal life and the state of the Roman Empire during his time of leadership for context. It gives a lot of depth to his writings beyond campy self help hashtags. He was a guy who really figured out how to stay undefeated and sort of defined “if it doesn’t kill you it will make you stronger”.
From what I recall he was adopted, grew up in but outside of power at the same time given that status, seized control of the Roman Empire anyways, tragically lost his wife and either 6 or 8 children, plus some other crap. The Empire was struggling too during his time. Constant war, a plague, trade issues if I remember correctly… very rocky. Either fate had the right guy in the right place at the right time for his day or he really learned how to make lemonade from lemons and shared the knowledge.
My personal interest is that I’m a low key history nerd, and I think it’s important to pick up tidbits from people who have reached a respectable level of success, and legendary is icing on the cake.
Aurelius bridges both and is surprisingly open for being the public figure that he was, so there’s lots of interesting insight layered with historical value of at least one mind behind the Romans.
I’d say it’s worth a read for a variety of reasons, and worth keeping the context of his life experiences top of mind while reading his thoughts.
I don’t think any philosophy or religion are rivals. I think it is the same message. The Sikhs believe one god, different paths.
I agree. In twelve step programs it’s called hitting bottom, but everybody’s bottom looks different. Everybody’s “brokenness” is different.
Whatever it is, it’s of value.
The Taoists might disagree. Certainly the Buddhists. All of life is “suffering” is one of the four noble truths of Buddhism. Suffering is better described as dissatisfaction. My brother is fabulously wealthy, but dissatisfied - because he is grasping for more. That is “suffering.”
I kind of figure this is a sign that the similarities are the truths - do unto others, turn the other cheek, this too shall pass.
There is a BBC documentary that posits Jesus disappeared at twelve and studied with the Buddhists before returning. They claim after he rose, he traveled back to Tibet and is buried there.
I think @SkyzykS makes a valid point regarding Fibonacci and other “coincidences.” I am not saying this is proof of a supreme architect, but I do believe it provides a reason to believe that there is a universal law regarding the generation, organization, and destruction of life.
I am greatly appreciative of the contributions to this thread. I do believe in a “supreme architect” but I am also a recovering atheist/deist, so there is that. I have been a Mason for more than thirty years, am fascinated by the esoteric aspects of all religions, am woefully ignorant of them as well. So I enjoy hearing from others.
I do too. There are undeniably laws in place, and I see both philosophies and religions attempting to teach how to best live within them, with religions taking an extra step of creating illustrative stories around them. Whatever it is, we all live in the same matrix.
It’s too bad there aren’t PM’s here. I think we have some commonalities.
