[shakespeare47]

I've been pursuing an interest in philosophy for the last year or so. For me, it's more about critical thinking and how to live the best life possible.

I became aware that in the ancient world, philosophy was a therapeutic exercise designed to help one live the best life possible. Each of the schools promised to have the answer to the question, "how do I truly flourish as a human?" I really like the Stoic ideals. For them, pursuing moral excellence resulted in living the best life possible. They made it a point not to make judgments about anything that happened that was not "up to them". Their goal was to only consider "what was up to them", and what was up to them was their own way of looking at the world. They acknowledged that they couldn't control external events, but rather only how they viewed those external events.

Anyone else come across this concept? This concept also comes up in humanistic psychology and in Maslov's hierarchy of needs.

Looking back, I can see that many, if not all of the major problems I have had in my life have been due to how I handled what was happening to me. So, in that sense, I am responsible for much of my own pain.

I'd like to get to the point where I literally don't care about what is happening outside my own judgments and actions, and where I can concentrate all my energy on being a virtuous person.

[ScientiaOmnisEst]

I liked this idea at first, then as I've tried to live it, it's not worth it. I don't buy the stoic idea that you're responsible for all your own pain, or of trying to control your reactions and kill off your emotions. It's not worth it, and I'm not sure why someone would subject themselves to that in the name of "virtue". What the hell do you even do in life with no ego? You have no motivation, you can't feel, you don't care abut anything...

"Ego" is life. So is attachment. Without it, you're basically walking dead with nothing inside. There's nothing false about it, and it has as much potential to be a wonderful thing as a painful thing; that undulating duality is what life is made of.

[ScientiaOmnisEst]

Actually, I just spent half an hour reading about stoicism again.

The good life is empty and painful ad the fulfilled life is evil. Everything is evil.

[BrazenApogee]

I recommend the novel "Stoneport" by Hill Anderson.

Massive ego is a blight on society. You can make as many excuses up for your bad behavior as you like but when it gets down to it.....if you're evil, your evil and there is NO excuse for that.

[shakespeare47]

Originally Posted by ScientiaOmnisEst

Actually, I just spent half an hour reading about stoicism again.

The good life is empty and painful ad the fulfilled life is evil. Everything is evil.

Mind sharing your source for these ideas about Stoicism???

I'm operating under the assumption that the basics of Stoicism are: The only good is moral good, and the only evil is moral evil. Living a life of moral good is a reward in and of itself. They also believed that man is capable of being rational, and of making objective judgments. It takes some practice, but the effort is worth it.

^^That's Stoicism for me. ^^

I do remind myself from time to time, that when people have a problem with me, it is sometimes their issue, not mine. If it's my issue, then I need to take care of it. If it's their issue, then I needn't worry about it. Unless I can help them see how they are harming themselves. But, not everyone is open to correction.

[ScientiaOmnisEst]

Originally Posted by shakespeare47

Mind sharing your source for these ideas about Stoicism???

I'm operating under the assumption that the basics of Stoicism are: The only good is moral good, and the only evil is moral evil. Living a life of moral good is a reward in and of itself. They also believed that man is capable of being rational, and of making objective judgments. It takes some practice, but the effort is worth it.

^^That's Stoicism for me. ^^

I do remind myself from time to time, that when people have a problem with me, it is sometimes their issue, not mine. If it's my issue, then I need to take care of it. If it's their issue, then I needn't worry about it. Unless I can help them see how they are harming themselves. But, not everyone is open to correction.

The first thing I think of when I think of Stoicism is emotional control. Extreme emotional control. Never allowing feelings to affect one's cognition. I see modern proponents of the philosophy talk about having "absolute control" over their minds, dismissing feelings as nothing but chemicals and therefore meaningless, or claiming that the inconstancy of emotions makes them worthless.

All of this is so contrary to my more romanticist nature I can hardly stand it. It's so empty, dull, and agonizingly painful to even think about. BUT, if it's the only way to be a good person, then I am a bad person simply for being me.

You describe stoicism as being about morality - what constitutes morality, though? What constitutes moral good (and, I'm not sure I can accept that that's the only good)? Nor is it a reward by itself - nothing could be further from the truth, as I see it. But, clearly, many people feel differently, and that doesn't really bother me, until I start to consider that it means I'm a bad person for not being just like them. Then I panic.

[shakespeare47]

Originally Posted by ScientiaOmnisEst

The first thing I think of when I think of Stoicism is emotional control.

Yes, that is what a lot of people think of when Stoicism is brought up. In fact, the character Spock was based on Roddenberry's interpretation of Stoicism.

But, is that what Stoicism was really about? The research I've done suggests it's very different than the assumptions people make about it.

[Harmacy]

I got quite heavily into Stoicism after doing CBT and still enjoy reading about it. I do think it's quite misunderstood. It's a lot like Taoism or Buddhism in that it doesn't tell you not to have emotions or not to have an ego, just not to cling to those things, not to define yourself by them but instead to take a perspective of non attachment.

Moving towards less attachment and reduced ego inevitably eases suffering. But I think the Stoics accepted that nobody was perfect so it was very much about improvement rather than perfection. Only the sage is perfectly virtuous and he or she may not exist beyond a mythical ideal.

But you still get to have pleasurable emotions - you just enjoy them a lot more when they're happening. Instead of clinging on to them fearing they will end or trying to will them into being fearing they will never happen. Its about letting go of external events that we have no control over.

As I understand it, Stoicism isn't about emotional control, it's about living in harmony with nature. That can look like control to an outsider but the crucial thing is what's behind it.

A moralist is like a machine, they are conditioned by social norms and may not even understand what lies behind the morals they follow and get angry about.

A Stoic however is more focused on their own attitude to life and freely choosing it. In the end the only freedom we have is the attitude to what we do and think so we need to be aware of the decisions we make and why we make them to live a life in harmony with nature. Otherwise we are essentially living someone else's life. And that leads to profound unhappiness and unfulfillment.

Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.
You have power over your mind - not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength.
Very little is needed to make a happy life; it is all within yourself, in your way of thinking. ~ Marcus Aurelius

[shakespeare47]

Originally Posted by Harmacy

A Stoic however is more focused on their own attitude to life and freely choosing it. In the end the only freedom we have is the attitude to what we do and think so we need to be aware of the decisions we make and why we make them to live a life in harmony with nature. Otherwise we are essentially living someone else's life. And that leads to profound unhappiness and unfulfillment.

Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.
You have power over your mind - not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength.
Very little is needed to make a happy life; it is all within yourself, in your way of thinking. ~ Marcus Aurelius

Well said. Thank you.

[ScientiaOmnisEst]

Originally Posted by Harmacy

I got quite heavily into Stoicism after doing CBT and still enjoy reading about it. I do think it's quite misunderstood. It's a lot like Taoism or Buddhism in that it doesn't tell you not to have emotions or not to have an ego, just not to cling to those things, not to define yourself by them but instead to take a perspective of non attachment.

Moving towards less attachment and reduced ego inevitably eases suffering.

Here's why I reject this so hard: how can you exist without attachments? Without an identity? I mean, sure, you exist as a piece of matter, but you don't even need to be alive to do that. If you are nothing/no one, care about nothing and no one, why bother even being alive?

[ScientiaOmnisEst]

Originally Posted by ScientiaOmnisEst

Here's why I reject this so hard: how can you exist without attachments? Without an identity? I mean, sure, you exist as a piece of matter, but you don't even need to be alive to do that. If you are nothing/no one, care about nothing and no one, why bother even being alive?

Adding onto my own comment here after a new, semi-related thought: I tried talking on Reddit to somepeople about Stoicism and how the hell it's even livable, and one person described the goal as removing emotions from cognition as much as possible, because emotions are terrible judges and will always lead you astray.

I can't entirely believe that. I have to concede that YES, emotional cognition can be distorted, can lead to some absurdly wrong conclusions, can do some really messed up stuff. But it can also lead to some very fulfilling conclusions and ways of life.

[shakespeare47]

Well ScientiaOmnisEst, I admit people have all kinds of opinions about Stoicism. I've given you my perspective, Harmacy has given you his.... It's up to you to look into it for yourself, if you're so inclined. It's definitely not for everyone.

[shakespeare47]

I had the opportunity to listen to Ryan Holiday speak recently. I previously dismissed him as just someone riding the wave of popularity, but I have to admit I was impressed by his story, his presence, and the way he fielded difficult questions.

So, I ordered his book, Ego is the Enemy.

Ryan Holiday’s first book Trust Me, I’m Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator detailed Holiday’s life as a media strategist for various authors and companies and how he managed to create news stories out of thin air, drum up word-of-mouth and drive eyes and money to the companies he worked for by leveraging the news media, blogs and the 24/7 news cycle to his advantage.
His second book Growth Hacker Marketer followed a similar theme outlining all the ways Holiday and others were able to create and build companies seemingly overnight while growing their popularity and their valuations by subverting traditional methods. Since then “growth-hacking” is all over the place and once again Holiday’s methods proved valuable both to his companies and readers alike.
However, Holidays third book, The Obstacle is the Way was a departure from the previous two. From modern-day media hype and manipulation, The Obstacle is the Way instead focussed on a millennia-old school of philosophy called Stoicism. In the book Holiday ties the practices and philosophy of stoicism to the likes of businessman John Rockefeller, NCAA Division 1 coach Nick Saban and former-MLB pitcher Tommy John.
Holiday’s newest offering Ego is the Enemy, available now, follows a similar path of The Obstacle is the Way. The book is divided into three parts:
Aspire. Success. Failure.
Weaving stories of Presidents, NFL coaches, entrepreneurs and army generals, Holiday outlines the difference between those whose ego led them astray and, therefore, to ruin and those who were able to become successful and remain so by both keeping their ego and their ambitions in check.

For ego is a wicked sister of success

In so many cases repeated throughout history, one’s ego, the very thing which allowed them to ascend to such great heights so quickly is also what ultimately leads to their failure. They become blinded by ego, set in their ways, ignorant to the opinion of others or so sure of themselves they can’t see what’s right in from of them. It can be hard or next to impossible to recognize the difference between ambition and delusion.
Think of UFC fighter Anderson Silva in 2013 in his fight against young upstart Chris Weidman. Silva had stormed into the UFC, winning his first fight in under a minute, winning the UFC Middleweight title in his second fight and successfully defending it a record 10 times in a row. Silva taunted Weidman throughout the first round, drawing boos from the crowd and ire from Weidman. Silva sometimes quite literally letting his guard down and leaving his hands at this sides. Early in the second round Weidman hit Silva with a left, Silva pretended to be hurt, then Weidman followed with a right and another left and suddenly Silva was on the ground and the fight was over.
Silva allowed his success and his ego. His inability to see past his ego and previous success caused him to overlook the fight and underestimate his opponent and unceremoniously ending his reign as the longest-serving UFC Champion.

Ego leads to envy and it rots the bones of people big and small. Ego undermines greatness by deluding its holder.

On the flip side of the coin you have Warren Buffett with a net worth of $63 billion. Who lives in the same house he bought in 1958. Who despite his massive, nearly incomprehensible wealth, still lives frugally, maintains his same investment strategy to “be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful.” He does not give into the hype that drives so many in the market. His success is because he operates as if he is without ego. He keeps his pride under control and constantly, consistently reaps the benefits.
These lessons are hard to ignore. The evidence to the title of the book are seen time and time again. One’s ego can very easily become their enemy. It has been the case for centuries and will continue to do so. It’s not that those who are able to overcome have less of an ego, less ambition or less pride. It’s that they are aware and capable of keeping their ego at bay. Of foregoing honour, recognition and promotions because they have no meaning but to impress others.
The ego wants more but they fight back.
As I read this book I was constantly reminded of two of my favourite movie quotes, both from westerns.
In Unforgiven as Gene Hackman’s Bill Daggett lays prone, about to be killed by Clint Eastwood’s William Munny after he and his deputies lost a gunfight to Munny, the following exchange occurs:
Daggett: I don’t deserve this… to die like this. I was building a house.
Munny: Deserve’s got nothing to do with it.
Then Munny pulls the trigger.
This wasn’t how Daggett pictured it. He had been a Sherriff for some time now, a renowned fighter and he was set to retire to his new house. This was not how life was supposed to go. And, yet, here he was about to be on the losing end of a fight he felt never should have been in in the first place.
What he felt he earned or deserved, it did not matter.
The second quote is from No Country for Old Men:

You can’t stop what’s coming. It ain’t all waiting on you … that’s vanity.

The lesson in both cases is that life is indifferent to us. We are all mortal. It does not matter what we have done or been through before, life does not care. Vanity and ego and “deserve” can cloud all this. Believing the hype. Giving into the narrative fallacy. Expecting each decision to benefit us as the last has. These are all driven by ego and life will soon show us the error in our ways.
Ambition is a dangerous thing. Like running or exercising, we begin with a goal in mind and then, soon enough the same distance or the same weight isn’t enough. We need more to get the same stimulation and satisfaction. So it is with success and money. When we get to where we think we want to be, we are not satisfied as we expected to be. We need more and more.
While Holiday’s book is shorter than most, coming in at 216 pages, but it’s as long as it needs to be. In The Obstacle is the Way, Holiday uses stoicism as a practical philosophy and school of thought for working through the problems and hardships we come across in life. The resolution to Ego is the Enemy is purposefully made less clear. There is no tried or true method of taming one’s ego. Of balancing ambition with humility. The book has been written as much for the author as for the audience. Holiday shows us time and time again the historical evidence of dealing with the ugly side of one’s ego. It is something must be practiced and cared for every day.
It’s not an enemy that will be defeated and permanently vanquished. It will rear its head and we must be ready to fight back day in and day out.

[ScientiaOmnisEst]

shakespeare47, that quote you posted is exactly my point. If that's how one is going to go through life, why bother living at all? If everything is pointless and doomed to failure, if everyone and everything is going to hurt you and fcuk you over all the time no matter what you do, why waste the effort?

If wanting to do or be anything is so evil, how is living even possible? If it's so wrong to want things, to aspire to anything because everyone hates you, you're so worthless you don't deserve anything, how is a person supposed to live?

From what I see, ego is the greatest gift people have. It's the core of selfness, the thing that pushes life and the world forward. Damn if I'm not allowed to have a piece of that, even if I innately lack it.

[BrazenApogee]

Originally Posted by ScientiaOmnisEst

removing emotions from cognition as much as possible, because emotions are terrible judges and will always lead you astray.

I can't entirely believe that. I have to concede that YES, emotional cognition can be distorted, can lead to some absurdly wrong conclusions, can do some really messed up stuff. But it can also lead to some very fulfilling conclusions and ways of life.

Yeah, this is what my spiritual teacher tried to force on me "let go of your ego and emotions." I tried, I did everything he said, I had a complete breakdown. I shook uncontrollably for a month and a half. I stopped everything, eating, everything. And worse. I am still recovering.

Luckily, I continued my studies without him, and despite him. I have found the truth, as I can see it. He is now a shining example of who not to be and what not to do.

I have discovered that emotions are not something to get rid of, but that they are information about what is really going on in a situation. You don't have to do anything, just because you feel. As my T says "you can feel a great deal without doing anything." Feeling them is the important part, because that lets you know what IS going on. Sometimes it's painful, but the more you tolerate, the more you learn how to tolerate. It's just a feeling and it will pass.

That spiritual teacher wanted me to "let go of my ego." He tried to convince me in so many ways how valueless I was. I realize now, that was a way to control me. A way to attack the very essence of me and fill it with his own ego.

[shakespeare47]

Originally Posted by ScientiaOmnisEst

shakespeare47, that quote you posted is exactly my point. If that's how one is going to go through life, why bother living at all? If everything is pointless and doomed to failure, if everyone and everything is going to hurt you and fcuk you over all the time no matter what you do, why waste the effort?

I'm not sure how you got this from the quoted book review of Ryan Holiday's book Ego is the Enemy. Can you elaborate?

[shakespeare47]

Originally Posted by BrazenApogee

Yeah, this is what my spiritual teacher tried to force on me "let go of your ego and emotions." I tried, I did everything he said, I had a complete breakdown. I shook uncontrollably for a month and a half. I stopped everything, eating, everything. And worse. I am still recovering.

Luckily, I continued my studies without him, and despite him. I have found the truth, as I can see it. He is now a shining example of who not to be and what not to do.

I agree that to be forced to "let go of emotions" sounds odd. I wonder what he meant by that.

And how are you defining ego? The way I think about ego, it has only ever caused me problems. Confidence is desirable, but my ego keeps getting me into trouble.

From the book review above:

In so many cases repeated throughout history, one’s ego, the very thing which allowed them to ascend to such great heights so quickly is also what ultimately leads to their failure. They become blinded by ego, set in their ways, ignorant to the opinion of others or so sure of themselves they can’t see what’s right in from of them. It can be hard or next to impossible to recognize the difference between ambition and delusion.
Think of UFC fighter Anderson Silva in 2013 in his fight against young upstart Chris Weidman. Silva had stormed into the UFC, winning his first fight in under a minute, winning the UFC Middleweight title in his second fight and successfully defending it a record 10 times in a row. Silva taunted Weidman throughout the first round, drawing boos from the crowd and ire from Weidman. Silva sometimes quite literally letting his guard down and leaving his hands at this sides. Early in the second round Weidman hit Silva with a left, Silva pretended to be hurt, then Weidman followed with a right and another left and suddenly Silva was on the ground and the fight was over.
Silva allowed his success and his ego. His inability to see past his ego and previous success caused him to overlook the fight and underestimate his opponent and unceremoniously ending his reign as the longest-serving UFC Champion.

The way I see it, a person with confidence can acknowledge his own flaws and imperfections and will compensate and change when necessary. A person with an ego problem will deny that he has any flaws or imperfections. Ego denies reality. Confidence is more like self-respect, and accepts reality. I respect and value myself even though I'm aware of the reality of my own imperfections.

[ScientiaOmnisEst]

Ego isn't 100% negative, though. Nor are emotions. Yes, both can cause pain, lead a person astray, and blind them to reality. Both, however, are core parts of conscious human life and I don't really know how to not view them as meaningful (possibly the most meaningful) parts of life experience. The stuff that makes it worth it.

I think that's the whole reason I find myself pushing back so hard against any kind of neo-Stoic philosophy pushed as self-improvement. That kind of emotional moderation, as a lifestyle rather than a useful mental tool for trying circumstances, or even just to keep oneself in check. I can't see how it isn't empty, sterile, ambitionless, and just painfully detached.

[shakespeare47]

Originally Posted by ScientiaOmnisEst

Ego isn't 100% negative, though.

How would you describe ego? I see ego as a quality that's always damaging. How can ego be positive?

[BrazenApogee]

Originally Posted by shakespeare47

How would you describe ego? I see ego as a quality that's always damaging. How can ego be positive?

Ego is important on some levels, without an Ego (defined as a separate "I" from the world, with intrinsic value in existence) the enmeshment with the rest of reality within the mind would be a destructive force. This is the condition of a baby, for a baby does not realize it is separate from Mother or anything else for that matter. If baby hurts, the whole world must be hurting according to baby's mind. Once baby realizes that "other than baby" exists the Ego has begun to form. This development is important, as without an "I" and "other than I" the world can not be influenced and changed by the person. Choices in life can not be made. Therefore, at some level Ego is necessary. Without an Ego is the land of complete psychosis, where there is no differentiation between self and the world.

This of course leads to spiritual teachings (such as my former advisor who messed me up so badly) for they believe that to return to that "oneness" (lack of Ego) is the height of spiritual progression, and they teach this. Yet, people like my former advisor are so full of themselves "I am so great" they have a Big Ego, for they think they are better than everyone else. When someone like me questions what they are saying they attack, emotionally and psychologically, to destroy anyone who does not agree that they are the greatest person ever. Their mind can not handle the thought of being wrong in any way. They can not tolerate their own emotions, so they control everyone around them.

[shakespeare47]

Originally Posted by BrazenApogee

Ego is important on some levels, without an Ego (defined as a separate "I" from the world, with intrinsic value in existence) the enmeshment with the rest of reality within the mind would be a destructive force. This is the condition of a baby, for a baby does not realize it is separate from Mother or anything else for that matter. If baby hurts, the whole world must be hurting according to baby's mind. Once baby realizes that "other than baby" exists the Ego has begun to form. This development is important, as without an "I" and "other than I" the world can not be influenced and changed by the person. Choices in life can not be made. Therefore, at some level Ego is necessary. Without an Ego is the land of complete psychosis, where there is no differentiation between self and the world.

I can say that Ryan Holiday is not attacking the idea that we are separate from the world. That sounds like "ego" from a psychological perspective, as opposed to the destructive idea that any person can be without flaw.

This of course leads to spiritual teachings (such as my former advisor who messed me up so badly) for they believe that to return to that "oneness" (lack of Ego) is the height of spiritual progression, and they teach this. Yet, people like my former advisor are so full of themselves "I am so great" they have a Big Ego, for they think they are better than everyone else. When someone like me questions what they are saying they attack, emotionally and psychologically, to destroy anyone who does not agree that they are the greatest person ever. Their mind can not handle the thought of being wrong in any way. They can not tolerate their own emotions, so they control everyone around them.

I think you and Ryan Holiday are on "the same page", in that you both are aware that there are certain attitudes (I am so great... I can't be wrong) that are destructive both to the self, and to others around people with that attitude.

[Harmacy]

Originally Posted by ScientiaOmnisEst

Here's why I reject this so hard: how can you exist without attachments? Without an identity? I mean, sure, you exist as a piece of matter, but you don't even need to be alive to do that. If you are nothing/no one, care about nothing and no one, why bother even being alive?

I would say in theory you could exist very easily without attachments. And be much happier too. All the things you believe you need to be attached to would still either be there or not be there, regardless of whether you were attached to them or not

Not being attached to something doesn't mean rejecting it or shunning it. It means taking an indifferent attitude to it.

Extreme attachment leads us to define ourselves by possessions or key relationships with others. So you immediately start to consider what would happen if it/they went away - how would I survive? how could I live? and now you're not thinking about that other thing or person - you're thinking of yourself.

I'm not suggesting Stoics are completely non-attached or without ego. Its just helpful to think about those aspects of our lives for some of us.

[Fuzzybear]

Originally Posted by ScientiaOmnisEst

I liked this idea at first, then as I've tried to live it, it's not worth it. I don't buy the stoic idea that you're responsible for all your own pain, or of trying to control your reactions and kill off your emotions. It's not worth it, and I'm not sure why someone would subject themselves to that in the name of "virtue". What the hell do you even do in life with no ego? You have no motivation, you can't feel, you don't care abut anything...

"Ego" is life. So is attachment. Without it, you're basically walking dead with nothing inside. There's nothing false about it, and it has as much potential to be a wonderful thing as a painful thing; that undulating duality is what life is made of.

This is an interesting post.. I don't agree that those who have chosen this have "nothing inside" although they may feel this, or even appear this way to others..

With "no ego" yes, it could be hard to find motivation

Attachment too, a normal part of being human..