let's see if I understand correctly: 1. Hedonism = Seek pleasure and avoid pain and sorrow. Yes you'll get stuck in a loop, because pleasure cannot be constantly maintained, so just be ready to drown your sorrows in a newfound pleasure. 2. Cynicism = the Price of pleasure is too great, therefore don't even try and you won't know what you're missing. 3. Stoicism = Bad things are fated to happen and there's nothing to be done about it, so learn what you can, seek self-improvement, and remember what doesn't kill you makes you stronger, so grin and bear it.
Its not just "grin and bear", stoics like marcus aurelius also preached to be grateful for every event, and love everything that happens, as it is the god's will.
i would like to be a stoic because i like the idea of being disinterested and just being accepting of everything. here in my country covid has shown people their worst nightmares and stoicism is all about going with the nature accepting change and improving and this mindset has helped me a lot
I have arrived at a personal philosophy similar to an evolved version of Epicureanism. I seek pleasure in all experiences, even painful ones. When something inevitably passes, I accept it and find contentment in reminiscing about what it was. There was a video I saw when I was depressed that shook my core as a teenager. The guy on it said the following: "Sadness in a certain sense is good, it makes you see other things that happiness doesn't let you see." I think I started developing myself from there...
There is no light without darkness.. I find, it’s best to find comfort in discomfort, because the route one takes which is least comfortable is likely the best route when it comes to building your best self 😅
my response when presented with choices, as if you're some kind of boss to make me have to pick one over the others, you're not, is "I'll have some of each" 😎
I find Stoicism very helpful when dealing with life’s unavoidable circumstances. And I think that is because it just makes sense to me, but it can be hard to practice on a day-to-day basis (mainly because sometimes is very hard to notice progress). If you’re not mature enough intellectually, you might give in to your emotions and find yourself trapped in a cycle of pleasures over and over again. This happens to me from time to time, but I keep trying to improve myself regardless, even if that means starting from zero.
I think I fall somewhere between cynicism and stoicism. I lived on the streets for almost a decade and I can honestly say those were the happiest years of my life, or at least when I was the least stressed. I didn't ever get into heavy drugs or anything, I just felt that the rat race just wasn't worth it. Honestly, I still feel that way. It seems an endless cycle to ensnare the mind in pointless worries. But at the same time, to allow oneself to exist in a single circumstance forever almost seems akin to admitting defeat, which is (at least to me) one and the same as admitting weakness, which I've learned is something that will get you killed quicker than anything else. Or at least will leave you with a diminished sense of self. Society isn't worth the effort, but at the same time pushing through the bullshit and playing along, even if it's just out of spite and thinly veiled contempt, is necessary. But also absolutely exhausting and of questionable worth. Edited to expand on a few thoughts and perhaps give a more definitive answer: I acknowledge that stoicism definitely has its strengths. However, I don't believe that we follow a predestined path. In fact, I believe that self is the highest power in an individual's life. Every choice begets countless consequences and more choices, and perhaps each decision one makes creates its own timeline which, in turn, branches into yet more timelines. Though that's a different conversation altogether. What I'm trying to say is that self is the sole authority when it comes to one's own fate. There is no higher power than that of your mind. With cynicism, however, it seems to me as though it's the philosophy for the internally tormented. One sees the sorry state of affairs that they've been born into and rejects it, but they in turn are rejected or looked down upon for refusing to fall in line with the rest of society, as society is a savage beast that demands compliance. Compliance that the cynic refuses to accept, instead seeking solace in solitude and solidarity in individuality, expectations of the masses be damned. So if I had to choose, I'd say I'm a cynic. Though none of these schools of thought are entirely without merit and I hold true to certain aspects of all three.
You've lived an interesting life. If it wasn't for your views on the self I would suggest Buddhism or similar eastern philosophies would suit you very well. The demands of society are not the self but they create a tension between expectations of the external world and the expectations you have of yourself. If you lean too much in one direction you become a conformist, lean too much in the other direction and you become an individualist. You could try to balance the two in an effort to remain critical of the external world without becoming shunned by it but this leaves the problem that you are still being shaped in large part by a society that is driven by motives that you don't approve of. So it is the self that is torn because it wants everything at once. Not taking the self all that seriously is powerful in this way. May I ask, how would you define "the self"?
@@lievenyperman9363 If I had to put it into words, the conscious mind of the observer. Example, my body houses my brain. My brain is what allows me to analyze the world around me, to form thoughts, cultivate knowledge, and feel emotions. The physical form that it inhabits is more akin to a life support system. The biological hardware that runs the OS that is...well, me. In theory, if we were to reach the point transhumanists would like to see, we could exist completely independent of our physical forms, free of the limitations of biology. The brain would remain intact, or at least the consciousness would in some digital format. On the flip side, if we were to remove all cognitive function from my physical body, it would just be a husk. It'd be the material framework that who I was resided in, but it wouldn't be me even if biological functions remained otherwise unchanged.
@@xenogorwraithblade2538 Again, very interesting. The mind, in my opinion, however doesn't form thoughts but thoughts arise in it. There is no conscious experience of building thoughts, they just happen. The reason they feel like our thoughts is because they don't shock us, that is because they are based on previous experiences and interpretations. If one is angry, for example, angry thoughts arise more compulsively than others. There is no conscious process in which we form them though, they arise already formed. In that sense the subconscious mind is not under the direct control of the rational mind, it is more the other way around. When the mind is at peace, there is more room for insights, evaluation and creativity. What we believe the self is will always function as a filter between the observed and the experienced. That is to say that there are two elements to "the conscious mind of the observer" (as you eloquently described it). There is the part that observes and the part that is conscious. The observer has as a function to evaluate the experiencer but consciousness is neutral it is that which allows any kind of experience. The observer allows evaluation of the experiencer or just the experience but consciousness is that in which those experiences are, well, experienced. So I would say, the observer and experiencer are both the structure of what we call the self, they give it shape, meaning, rules, etc but they exist within consciousness which can be seen as not the self but at the very least it is connected to the self or it is the context in which a self can be constructed but it is not part of the self. The more we distance ourselves from the self construct, by not engaging with anything that arises in our minds, the more we feel at peace. The self conjures up expectations, judgments, preferences, etc which creates turmoil in the mind. That is what I mean with not taking the self seriously is what allows peace of mind. All of this may be of no use to you whatsoever but I read your post and found it very interesting. I found myself agreeing with most of what you said and was surprised to see you put the self at the center of all that because, like I mentioned, it had a Buddhist feel to it. So I just wanted to exchange some thoughts about it. I am considering the opposite move you made, I've been dragging my feet in compliance with society but the last couple of years I've been going the other way, I will be visiting a couple of communes to see how they structured their existence and I am planning to live in a zen monastery for a while and I also want to live without a home for a while to experience true separation of any form of society. So if you have any advice you can give me about that life, I would greatly appreciate it.
Madness is relative, kindness is universal, and sketch is subjective. Mind who you trust, people are sketchy, but also remember people can on occasion not suck. Mind who you trust, but mind even more so who you judge. I've been fucked over more times than I'd like to admit by yuppies claiming to give a shit than by tweekers trying to get a high. We look out for our own out there. Ideally, at least. But also hedonism is law. Be kind, but know what works. People often try to instill their views into issues that don't involve them. Try to avoid that. Mind your own. Elsewise invites hostility. Hostility is not conducive to cultivating a community of your own. Don't be afraid to throw down. People will try to hurt you. Physically. Respond in kind. If you don't, harm can and likely will come your way. If you want to live that life, pacifism isn't the way to go. Know that harm will come your way. Your only chance is to fight back. But before that, rely on humor. Don't worry about being offensive, nobody that I've ever met in the real world has called that kind of humor bad. It gets you money for food, booze, and gear. Anyone has a complaint, maybe fuck 'em. Their opinion doesn't matter, because their opinion didn't feed you. Ultimately, though, just be you. It's one of the only situations in our world where individuality is still encouraged.
Excellent presentation- very astute and comprehensive breakdown of Western philosophers approach to motivation / desire. You might be surprised to learn, hopefully without prejudice, that Eastern religions (Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism) drilled into these themes CENTURIES before Socrates was even born. Here are some West-East connections: 1.) Disinterested Rational Will / Stoic Wisdom = "Middle Way" 2.) Logos / Fate / Determinism = "Impermanence" & "Dependent Origination" 3.) Courage / mental toughness = Right Concentration and Right Mindfulness (Samadhi, Sati / Jhana) 4.) Attachment = craving / Raga + aversion / Dvesha (ie inverse craving) 5.) "Everything has a price / cost" = this concept is not really true as a warzone refugees will 9 out of 10 score lower on life-satisfaction survey than pop singers. The more encompassing concept is Homeostasis, "Hedonic Treadmill / Adaptation", & "Opponent Process Theory", which is "Samsara"
True! The idea of letting go of attachments and earthly possessions is certainly a general parallel between the Cynic philosophy and the teachings of Buddha. Now, of course, there are important nuanced differences between the two, but nevertheless, pointing out this similarity is an acute observation.
Yes. I'm a combination of all three. I am a cynical and stoic hedonist. Or am I a cynical and hedonistic stoic? Or maybe a hedonistic and stoic cynic? I don't know. Depends on the day, the time, the situation. I don't know which of these is 100% true. I find they all have value in context of a situation or person or thing or belief. It's a mix. They're all valid and interesting and make me think.
Cicero wasn't really a Stoic. He was an early Middle Platonist. As part of a' resurrection of the spirit of the Old Academy (after Academic Skepticism & the Roman demolition of the Academy in Athens), Antiochus of Ashkelon borrowed from Stoicism & Peripateticism.
I would say I’m more of a stoic; to reject the societal norms is great idealistically, but one has to remember they still have to live within society, and the way society is built nowadays, you can’t really live comfortably without accepting some of society’s standards. Of course I say this with a bias because I have a medical condition, so as of right now I am more of a stoic. But if ever there was a cure for my condition as to where I could live completely free of medications (I have Crohns Disease, for more perspective)…then I would be more of a cynic.
Objective meaning doesn't exist, only the delusional subjective meaning from meaningless creatures In short, life is meaningless Hedinism really prevails, just don't be an idiot Although all of the mentioned philosophies have something to offer Cynicism - [after pleasure] expect pain to come Stocism - control your reactions Like I said tho, hedonism just makes more sense
Stoicism. Working in hospitality and catering to hedonists made me realize even with great abundance, they are most all miserable. Meanwhile, those in the back of the house smile through pain. Through this pain things as pedestrian as water and bread gain value thanks to thirst and hunger. It's a funny parallel, the hedonist complains about their wagyu and their high end wine or something pedestrian while I value a chunk of bread, sip of water, or moment to breathe. 😃 living in a state of eudaimonia
Wow - thank you for sharing this insightful and eye-opening meditation. It is a beautiful thing when we encounter the relevance of these philosophical theories in our everyday lives. You are a true Stoic, indeed!
Outstanding!!!! Excellent 👍! Both in information and presentation, very little 'fat'. I can't think of a better presentation I've ever heard...... on this or any other subject.
let's see if I understand correctly:
1. Hedonism = Seek pleasure and avoid pain and sorrow. Yes you'll get stuck in a loop, because pleasure cannot be constantly maintained, so just be ready to drown your sorrows in a newfound pleasure.
2. Cynicism = the Price of pleasure is too great, therefore don't even try and you won't know what you're missing.
3. Stoicism = Bad things are fated to happen and there's nothing to be done about it, so learn what you can, seek self-improvement, and remember what doesn't kill you makes you stronger, so grin and bear it.
as for myself: I wish I was a stoic, but I seem to flop back and forth between hedonism and cynicism.
That about sums it up!
Its not just "grin and bear", stoics like marcus aurelius also preached to be grateful for every event, and love everything that happens, as it is the god's will.
Mmmm what would all three be?
@@wendylcs4283I like that dude, that's like almost commendable ❤. I'm the same, the stoic seems to be the best thing to be....
i would like to be a stoic because i like the idea of being disinterested and just being accepting of everything. here in my country covid has shown people their worst nightmares and stoicism is all about going with the nature accepting change and improving and this mindset has helped me a lot
I have arrived at a personal philosophy similar to an evolved version of Epicureanism. I seek pleasure in all experiences, even painful ones. When something inevitably passes, I accept it and find contentment in reminiscing about what it was.
There was a video I saw when I was depressed that shook my core as a teenager. The guy on it said the following: "Sadness in a certain sense is good, it makes you see other things that happiness doesn't let you see." I think I started developing myself from there...
There is no light without darkness..
I find, it’s best to find comfort in discomfort, because the route one takes which is least comfortable is likely the best route when it comes to building your best self 😅
my response when presented with choices, as if you're some kind of boss to make me have to pick one over the others, you're not, is "I'll have some of each" 😎
I find Stoicism very helpful when dealing with life’s unavoidable circumstances. And I think that is because it just makes sense to me, but it can be hard to practice on a day-to-day basis (mainly because sometimes is very hard to notice progress). If you’re not mature enough intellectually, you might give in to your emotions and find yourself trapped in a cycle of pleasures over and over again. This happens to me from time to time, but I keep trying to improve myself regardless, even if that means starting from zero.
Stoic for me because I like involving myself in the world while also not changing who I am and not caring at the same time. It's a good balance
I think I fall somewhere between cynicism and stoicism. I lived on the streets for almost a decade and I can honestly say those were the happiest years of my life, or at least when I was the least stressed. I didn't ever get into heavy drugs or anything, I just felt that the rat race just wasn't worth it. Honestly, I still feel that way. It seems an endless cycle to ensnare the mind in pointless worries. But at the same time, to allow oneself to exist in a single circumstance forever almost seems akin to admitting defeat, which is (at least to me) one and the same as admitting weakness, which I've learned is something that will get you killed quicker than anything else. Or at least will leave you with a diminished sense of self. Society isn't worth the effort, but at the same time pushing through the bullshit and playing along, even if it's just out of spite and thinly veiled contempt, is necessary. But also absolutely exhausting and of questionable worth.
Edited to expand on a few thoughts and perhaps give a more definitive answer:
I acknowledge that stoicism definitely has its strengths. However, I don't believe that we follow a predestined path. In fact, I believe that self is the highest power in an individual's life. Every choice begets countless consequences and more choices, and perhaps each decision one makes creates its own timeline which, in turn, branches into yet more timelines. Though that's a different conversation altogether. What I'm trying to say is that self is the sole authority when it comes to one's own fate. There is no higher power than that of your mind.
With cynicism, however, it seems to me as though it's the philosophy for the internally tormented. One sees the sorry state of affairs that they've been born into and rejects it, but they in turn are rejected or looked down upon for refusing to fall in line with the rest of society, as society is a savage beast that demands compliance. Compliance that the cynic refuses to accept, instead seeking solace in solitude and solidarity in individuality, expectations of the masses be damned. So if I had to choose, I'd say I'm a cynic. Though none of these schools of thought are entirely without merit and I hold true to certain aspects of all three.
You've lived an interesting life. If it wasn't for your views on the self I would suggest Buddhism or similar eastern philosophies would suit you very well. The demands of society are not the self but they create a tension between expectations of the external world and the expectations you have of yourself. If you lean too much in one direction you become a conformist, lean too much in the other direction and you become an individualist. You could try to balance the two in an effort to remain critical of the external world without becoming shunned by it but this leaves the problem that you are still being shaped in large part by a society that is driven by motives that you don't approve of. So it is the self that is torn because it wants everything at once. Not taking the self all that seriously is powerful in this way. May I ask, how would you define "the self"?
@@lievenyperman9363 If I had to put it into words, the conscious mind of the observer. Example, my body houses my brain. My brain is what allows me to analyze the world around me, to form thoughts, cultivate knowledge, and feel emotions. The physical form that it inhabits is more akin to a life support system. The biological hardware that runs the OS that is...well, me. In theory, if we were to reach the point transhumanists would like to see, we could exist completely independent of our physical forms, free of the limitations of biology. The brain would remain intact, or at least the consciousness would in some digital format. On the flip side, if we were to remove all cognitive function from my physical body, it would just be a husk. It'd be the material framework that who I was resided in, but it wouldn't be me even if biological functions remained otherwise unchanged.
@@xenogorwraithblade2538 Again, very interesting. The mind, in my opinion, however doesn't form thoughts but thoughts arise in it. There is no conscious experience of building thoughts, they just happen. The reason they feel like our thoughts is because they don't shock us, that is because they are based on previous experiences and interpretations. If one is angry, for example, angry thoughts arise more compulsively than others. There is no conscious process in which we form them though, they arise already formed. In that sense the subconscious mind is not under the direct control of the rational mind, it is more the other way around. When the mind is at peace, there is more room for insights, evaluation and creativity. What we believe the self is will always function as a filter between the observed and the experienced. That is to say that there are two elements to "the conscious mind of the observer" (as you eloquently described it). There is the part that observes and the part that is conscious. The observer has as a function to evaluate the experiencer but consciousness is neutral it is that which allows any kind of experience. The observer allows evaluation of the experiencer or just the experience but consciousness is that in which those experiences are, well, experienced. So I would say, the observer and experiencer are both the structure of what we call the self, they give it shape, meaning, rules, etc but they exist within consciousness which can be seen as not the self but at the very least it is connected to the self or it is the context in which a self can be constructed but it is not part of the self. The more we distance ourselves from the self construct, by not engaging with anything that arises in our minds, the more we feel at peace. The self conjures up expectations, judgments, preferences, etc which creates turmoil in the mind. That is what I mean with not taking the self seriously is what allows peace of mind. All of this may be of no use to you whatsoever but I read your post and found it very interesting. I found myself agreeing with most of what you said and was surprised to see you put the self at the center of all that because, like I mentioned, it had a Buddhist feel to it. So I just wanted to exchange some thoughts about it. I am considering the opposite move you made, I've been dragging my feet in compliance with society but the last couple of years I've been going the other way, I will be visiting a couple of communes to see how they structured their existence and I am planning to live in a zen monastery for a while and I also want to live without a home for a while to experience true separation of any form of society. So if you have any advice you can give me about that life, I would greatly appreciate it.
Madness is relative, kindness is universal, and sketch is subjective. Mind who you trust, people are sketchy, but also remember people can on occasion not suck. Mind who you trust, but mind even more so who you judge. I've been fucked over more times than I'd like to admit by yuppies claiming to give a shit than by tweekers trying to get a high. We look out for our own out there. Ideally, at least. But also hedonism is law. Be kind, but know what works. People often try to instill their views into issues that don't involve them. Try to avoid that. Mind your own. Elsewise invites hostility. Hostility is not conducive to cultivating a community of your own. Don't be afraid to throw down. People will try to hurt you. Physically. Respond in kind. If you don't, harm can and likely will come your way. If you want to live that life, pacifism isn't the way to go. Know that harm will come your way. Your only chance is to fight back. But before that, rely on humor. Don't worry about being offensive, nobody that I've ever met in the real world has called that kind of humor bad. It gets you money for food, booze, and gear. Anyone has a complaint, maybe fuck 'em. Their opinion doesn't matter, because their opinion didn't feed you.
Ultimately, though, just be you. It's one of the only situations in our world where individuality is still encouraged.
@@xenogorwraithblade2538 Thanks for the advice. All the best.
i’m not even in your class, and I really enjoy this. Thank you 🙏
I think theres all 3 of these in everyone, like a philosophical trinity
Excellent presentation- very astute and comprehensive breakdown of Western philosophers approach to motivation / desire. You might be surprised to learn, hopefully without prejudice, that Eastern religions (Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism) drilled into these themes CENTURIES before Socrates was even born.
Here are some West-East connections:
1.) Disinterested Rational Will / Stoic Wisdom = "Middle Way"
2.) Logos / Fate / Determinism = "Impermanence" & "Dependent Origination"
3.) Courage / mental toughness = Right Concentration and Right Mindfulness (Samadhi, Sati / Jhana)
4.) Attachment = craving / Raga + aversion / Dvesha (ie inverse craving)
5.) "Everything has a price / cost" = this concept is not really true as a warzone refugees will 9 out of 10 score lower on life-satisfaction survey than pop singers. The more encompassing concept is Homeostasis, "Hedonic Treadmill / Adaptation", & "Opponent Process Theory", which is "Samsara"
thought I was a cynic, but I'm actually a stoic! 👍
well done
I also see a lot of Zen in the the Cynics' philosophy.
True! The idea of letting go of attachments and earthly possessions is certainly a general parallel between the Cynic philosophy and the teachings of Buddha. Now, of course, there are important nuanced differences between the two, but nevertheless, pointing out this similarity is an acute observation.
Yes. I'm a combination of all three. I am a cynical and stoic hedonist. Or am I a cynical and hedonistic stoic? Or maybe a hedonistic and stoic cynic? I don't know. Depends on the day, the time, the situation. I don't know which of these is 100% true. I find they all have value in context of a situation or person or thing or belief. It's a mix. They're all valid and interesting and make me think.
"If one does not know to which port one is sailing, no wind is favorable." - Seneca
Hedonism to me, is to live irresponsibly
Im temperamentally a cynic but stoicism always clicks for me.
Love the way you presented this.
Cicero wasn't really a Stoic. He was an early Middle Platonist. As part of a' resurrection of the spirit of the Old Academy (after Academic Skepticism & the Roman demolition of the Academy in Athens), Antiochus of Ashkelon borrowed from Stoicism & Peripateticism.
I honestly just enjoy being a cynic
closest to a stoic. virtue is the only path to happiness.
I’m a cynical hedonistic stoic.
I would say I’m more of a stoic; to reject the societal norms is great idealistically, but one has to remember they still have to live within society, and the way society is built nowadays, you can’t really live comfortably without accepting some of society’s standards. Of course I say this with a bias because I have a medical condition, so as of right now I am more of a stoic. But if ever there was a cure for my condition as to where I could live completely free of medications (I have Crohns Disease, for more perspective)…then I would be more of a cynic.
i choose a balane of three (middle path)...
Ahhh!!! How Buddhist of you :-)
I'd rather be sitting here watching you talk about philosophy and drink a coffee. That is my pleasure
Objective meaning doesn't exist, only the delusional subjective meaning from meaningless creatures
In short, life is meaningless
Hedinism really prevails, just don't be an idiot
Although all of the mentioned philosophies have something to offer
Cynicism - [after pleasure] expect pain to come
Stocism - control your reactions
Like I said tho, hedonism just makes more sense
Stoicism. Working in hospitality and catering to hedonists made me realize even with great abundance, they are most all miserable.
Meanwhile, those in the back of the house smile through pain. Through this pain things as pedestrian as water and bread gain value thanks to thirst and hunger.
It's a funny parallel, the hedonist complains about their wagyu and their high end wine or something pedestrian while I value a chunk of bread, sip of water, or moment to breathe. 😃 living in a state of eudaimonia
Wow - thank you for sharing this insightful and eye-opening meditation. It is a beautiful thing when we encounter the relevance of these philosophical theories in our everyday lives. You are a true Stoic, indeed!
CE? What are you some lord who uses the king's birthday to set your year? Get real.
Outstanding!!!! Excellent 👍!
Both in information and presentation, very little 'fat'. I can't think of a better presentation I've ever heard...... on this or any other subject.