Agreed. It's a philosophy for all seasons. Technology has ratcheted a number of psychological forces ever tighter even its let the pressure off on a handful more (disease, famine, warfare).
We had an a few generations from the end of the Great Depression/WWII where perhaps the average person needed psychological tools less. That seems to be reversing. Our flesh may be more secure than ever, but our mind is becoming ever harder to manage.
This was timely! Someone in a Facebook group for Stoicism yesterday demanded to know why people don't call themselves 'Stoics' as a rule. We all offered explanations, but your simple point that a label is a straitjacket on thought is quite sufficient reason to avoid adopting one.
The three truths from this post? I'm no expert in Taoism, and I suspect you'd have to see how each passed through a Taoist filter to get your answer. The same could be said for every religion/philosophy on earth.
These truths strike me as universal, but depending on what labels/beliefs you've adopted, they may not pass muster.
Great piece Andrew. One of the most remarkable things about Stoicism is just how widely and broadly applicable it is. Even today, thousands of years later, I believe the lessons taught by the Stoics are more applicable than ever.
> If you label yourself as part of a political party, a dietary approach, a movement, a religion, or a class, you’ll never think objectively about that label again. You can’t.
This is so, is it? Is it not a bit paradoxical? Is it *necessarily* correct? Perhaps certain labels are unlike the others. 😉
If I was willing to be wordier, I might have said it's much harder to think objectively about things you've let into your identity. Similarly, science is pretty clear that humans find it very challenging to see past their cognitive biases without outside assistance. It's not impossible. There are exercises to help us do it. But most people won't, and it requires a lot more energy. Heuristics are the default.
I mentioned being ok with "human being," and "virtue is the only good." But my acceptance of them into my identity necessarily limits my ability to be objective regarding them. I've no doubt someone might argue that the later is a loaded belief that will lead me astray. But I'm willing to accept it because I've experienced no obvious downsides. But could there be downsides? Absolutely. It can think of several possibilities.
Do you remember how long it used to take to get from London to New York? Like a week, or more!! And people never thought twice about it, *because there was no other (known) option*.
The identity/labels/opinions piece isn't something connected with Stoicism. I'm saying it because it's true. (I don't only talk about Stoicism here).
But if I wanted to make the argument that Stoicism has skepticism about knowledge and dangers of having "opinions," about everything baked in, keep in mind that ancient Stoics viewed their school as a branch of Socratic philosophy. Socrates was very skeptical about what he could know, suggesting that his only wisdom was that he recognized that he knew nothing.
Also, my old friend Marcus Aurelius: "You always own the option of having no opinion. There is never any need to get worked up or to trouble your soul about things you can't control. These things are not asking to be judged by you. Leave them alone"
The way I see it, by not labeling yourself or letting ideas become attached to your identity, you're just holding ideas at arms length and not forming firm opinions about whether or not they're definitely true or false."
Are you using "true" in the colloquial sense or the technical sense? If the latter, do you have a proof handy (the one that you read prior to upgrading the proposition from a belief to a fact should do).
Agreed. It's a philosophy for all seasons. Technology has ratcheted a number of psychological forces ever tighter even its let the pressure off on a handful more (disease, famine, warfare).
We had an a few generations from the end of the Great Depression/WWII where perhaps the average person needed psychological tools less. That seems to be reversing. Our flesh may be more secure than ever, but our mind is becoming ever harder to manage.
I've been mulling an article on this topic too.
This was timely! Someone in a Facebook group for Stoicism yesterday demanded to know why people don't call themselves 'Stoics' as a rule. We all offered explanations, but your simple point that a label is a straitjacket on thought is quite sufficient reason to avoid adopting one.
Are you the Judith Stove that was interviewed by Caleb recently?
Yes, that was most enjoyable, it was great to meet Caleb.
Awesome! I enjoyed that interview. Looking forward to reading your book when it's finished.
Thank you Andrew!
Does this apply to Taoists also?
The three truths from this post? I'm no expert in Taoism, and I suspect you'd have to see how each passed through a Taoist filter to get your answer. The same could be said for every religion/philosophy on earth.
These truths strike me as universal, but depending on what labels/beliefs you've adopted, they may not pass muster.
Taoism is different from other religions in very important ways.
Great piece Andrew. One of the most remarkable things about Stoicism is just how widely and broadly applicable it is. Even today, thousands of years later, I believe the lessons taught by the Stoics are more applicable than ever.
Worries about the future are entirely futile because they just are one's own personal ideas; insignificant brain farts so-to-say ...
Some smart guy once said:
"Do whatever you can, wherever you are, with the means currently at your disposal, NOW"
The future will happen, even if you're doing nothing at the moment.
But are these not your personal ideas? 🤔
1st. and last sentence are MHO, the quote is from a smart guy to which I fully agree.
Any further questions ??
Have you any curiosity about the facts of these matters?
I'm born, raised and stayed curious during my current stay on this planet.
So, what kind of facts are you going to present on the platter today ??
How about this: curiosity is not a true/false Boolean.
Curiosity, being a noun, is NOT an object/result that could be described by 1 or 0.
> If you label yourself as part of a political party, a dietary approach, a movement, a religion, or a class, you’ll never think objectively about that label again. You can’t.
This is so, is it? Is it not a bit paradoxical? Is it *necessarily* correct? Perhaps certain labels are unlike the others. 😉
If I was willing to be wordier, I might have said it's much harder to think objectively about things you've let into your identity. Similarly, science is pretty clear that humans find it very challenging to see past their cognitive biases without outside assistance. It's not impossible. There are exercises to help us do it. But most people won't, and it requires a lot more energy. Heuristics are the default.
I mentioned being ok with "human being," and "virtue is the only good." But my acceptance of them into my identity necessarily limits my ability to be objective regarding them. I've no doubt someone might argue that the later is a loaded belief that will lead me astray. But I'm willing to accept it because I've experienced no obvious downsides. But could there be downsides? Absolutely. It can think of several possibilities.
You have to decide what you're ok with.
Do you remember how long it used to take to get from London to New York? Like a week, or more!! And people never thought twice about it, *because there was no other (known) option*.
I think you may projecting modern discoveries onto them a bit — I’ve read all the original stoics, and don’t recall them talking about identity.
I think it’s a good point, and agree the stoics are great — but I think it’s stretching a bit to make it their point.
The identity/labels/opinions piece isn't something connected with Stoicism. I'm saying it because it's true. (I don't only talk about Stoicism here).
But if I wanted to make the argument that Stoicism has skepticism about knowledge and dangers of having "opinions," about everything baked in, keep in mind that ancient Stoics viewed their school as a branch of Socratic philosophy. Socrates was very skeptical about what he could know, suggesting that his only wisdom was that he recognized that he knew nothing.
Also, my old friend Marcus Aurelius: "You always own the option of having no opinion. There is never any need to get worked up or to trouble your soul about things you can't control. These things are not asking to be judged by you. Leave them alone"
The way I see it, by not labeling yourself or letting ideas become attached to your identity, you're just holding ideas at arms length and not forming firm opinions about whether or not they're definitely true or false."
Are you using "true" in the colloquial sense or the technical sense? If the latter, do you have a proof handy (the one that you read prior to upgrading the proposition from a belief to a fact should do).
Colloquial.
Which while normal (mandatory?), is also a bit wacky, if you really think about it eh?
Maybe the reason we need all these various coping mechanisms is because of small but deadly bugs like this in our cultural firmware.
My mistake — the repost that sent me here was on stoicism, so I read it in that context