“A defense of hypocrisy”-nice! Seriously, very interesting. Do I read authors who hold beliefs I don’t share? Yes, but not EVERY author with a different view is worthwhile, in my view. Life is too short to read indiscriminately on the principle that hearing different viewpoints is inherently worthwhile. We can’t avoid making judgments about what books will be useful or educational or good art. I don’t share Dante’s worldview but I checked out his book. You also raise the question of whether it makes sense to avoid authors who don’t practice what they preach…also a tricky one. In trying to decide, I would probably look for signs of self-awareness regarding failures to actualize their own ideals as articulated in their work. So I agree with your point that we can’t expect moral perfection from our artists…except to the extent they explicitly “preach” a particular “virtue.” In that circumstance I tend to think that hypocrisy is still a bad thing, to be called out and shamed.
Hello! I completely agree that hypocrisy should be called out. One must choose what is worth reading and what is not worth reading as there is never enough time to read it all. But, (there's always a but right?) I find myself coming to terms with the reality that for a long time I've allowed others to do my thinking for me rather than reading the controversial work and forming my own opinion based on my own reasoning and logic. This change from trusting other's opinions on a controversial work to reading it myself has been quite illuminating and has really made me understand myself and why I feel certain things. It's been wonderful. I think it leads to the awareness of ourselves that helps us examine our own hypocrisy, which is the most important hypocrisy to discover. Thank you for watching.
Fascinating series of questions you discuss in this video. I'm not very familiar with Seneca, but I do enjoy Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus among the Stoics. Among the many points you bring up, two struck me- The idea of learning from imperfect people reminded me strongly of the "wounded healer" tradition among many people, the idea that only those who had felt great pain could effect healing. Some even enacted ritual torture or trials to be a shaman or wise one because only one who had suffered could help others who suffered. I think there is wisdom in the idea of someone who is imperfect, who has scars (real or metaphorical) being better equipped to teach and heal. The other is learning from someone coming from a place of hypocrisy. I do think it is possible to learn something from anyone. An author (who I can't remember at the moment) once wrote that ideas are like guests at at your home. You can bring nearly everyone into the foyer, but decide there if you want them further in the house, or to put them out again. I'll give most anyone a listen, or a read of thier book, but I won't necessarily let it go past that in my mind unless there is something of merit to take in. And it is possible for someone who, for instance, is terrible at relationships to have something genuinely useful to say about them. That was a very thought-provoking video. Thanks for posting.
This is very interesting. Your comment made me think about those indigenous traditions of passing from adolescence into adulthood all over the globe. I never thought about it in those terms but I think you’re right. I remember learning about them when I was quite young and thinking about how much unnecessary suffering was involved. But wow. It’s the suffering that is the point. I like the perspective of inviting an idea into your home to get a better look at it, but then seeing if you want to invite it any further. Thank you for sharing.
I really like your refreshing perspective on Seneca. Seneca is my favorite Stoic because he's such a joy to read. Reading him you really feel as if you get to know this guy who lived 2000 years ago.....and you like him! I do find people who have struggled with failure and other personal shortcomings more interesting than people who appear to be flawless in character because, I myself, have struggled with failure and personal demons. It reminds me of a great book about Merriweather Lewis by Clay Jenkinson titled "The Character Of Merriweather Lewis" in which he states that he finds Lewis more interesting than William Clark because of Lewis's imperfections in contrast to Clark's steadfastness. Jenkinson also mentions that he finds Buzz Aldrin more interesting than Neil Armstrong because of the very same thing. After the Moon landing Buzz struggled with what his life's purpose was and fell into depression and alcoholism and subsequently rebounded from it. Armstrong, in contrast, had no such existential crisis and was nothing ever less than dependable and stable. Good video!
Thank you for watching. I think those people who don’t “struggle” are mostly a false presentation of themselves they show people. They may not struggle in the same places as someone else, but to not struggle anywhere with anything is in-human. There is strength in showing the vulnerability of one’s failure, there is no courage without fear. There is no strength without failure because if something is effortless, it’s not hard, and if it’s not hard there is no accomplishment.
I read meditations a few years ago. At first I was excited just to read the words of a Roman emperor. I partly felt conflicted tho about reading what basically seemed to be his diary. Would he have wanted that? How different would it be had he purposefully written it for others? The overall message strongly resonates with me; I'd definitely call myself a stoic, or atleast someone who "follows" or "practices" it... That may not be the perfect way to describe it, but I've sort of always a "ces't la vie" kind of attitude... to oversimplify a comparison. I still have passions, and cares and feelings.. But I accept that I will have highs and lows, successes and failures, and regrets, and one day my life (as I know it) will come to an end, and all my possessions will deteriorate etc. Looking at that paragraph above, it reminds me of how I felt reading meditations, at times It seemed like Marcus was depressed almost... but I think that's just how it comes off when you read a sentence like "accept that you will have failures" and such. Anyways, great book, thanks for your insight. I don't quite remember, but my understanding was Marcus didn't "invent" stoicism, but he was merely a practicer of the philosophy that was already fleshed out from earlier Greek stoics. Did Marcus make any substantive contributions himself in this book, or did he just put the existing philosophy into his own words? I don't quite recall
Hello! I can't say that I know enough about Marcus Aurelius to say definitively, but I have the impression that while he may not have called himself a Stoic he respected and embodied much of their philosophies and was introduced to Stoicism by the philosopher Apollonius. Stoicism isn't about not having emotions, as I've herd some people criticize it for, but about how to accept the good and the bad in a reasonable way. I quite respect that. Thank you for leaving your thoughts.
Really interesting discussion. The Greeks had a term for the sort of gap that you reference here: akrasia, which roughly translates as "weakness of will" and points to the universal phenomenon of our inability to always in all cases act in the ways that we believe are right or best, or, put slightly differently, hypocrisy. One interesting moral and artistic question is whether or not the existence of akrasia is itself desirable or not. I'm not sure!
Oh, that is interesting. Is akrasia desirable or not? Hmmmmmmmm…this is the question. I’d say anything worthwhile takes work. So, can morals be virtuous if they are easy to uphold? I want to say no. I think akrasia is not necessarily desirable, but essential for growth or even an objective perspective. Of course we’re speaking about general and abstract things. Thank you for sharing!
I wonder what Seneca’s critics would do if they won the lottery. Would they refuse the money saying, “oh no thanks I’m trying to practice stoicism”? Kinda doubt it. I really enjoy Seneca’s letters. They’re easy to read and interesting that they still apply today. Because of Seneca I’ve stopped going to the Coliseum for the gladiator fights. (I still go for the chariot races).
I haven’t. Tell me about why his writing speaks to you. Although after a very surface level google search, I feel I have to add Storm of Steel to the war autobiography section of my shelf.
@@ItsTooLatetoApologize Junger was a fascinating figure. Storm of Steel is a great memoir and makes for an interesting contrast with something like All Quiet on the Western Front, since Junger considered his combat experience in the first World War to be a transcendental opportunity, rather than the usual "war is hell" take. He also wrote brilliant essays on pain and freedom. He developed his concept of the anarch (not anarchist), one who lives in perfect inner freedom no matter the external situation imposed by state or society. He develops this idea of the anarch in his philosophical science fiction novel Eumeswil, which I’ve only just started reading. Martin Heidegger said that Junger was the only true Nietzschean he ever met. Junger proved himself an extremely brave man in his combat experience in the first World War, then later when the Nazis took power he wrote a novel critical of the Nazi party while still living his native Germany. He was a soldier, novelist, philosopher, and naturalist who lived to be 102 years old. He was a Nietzschean for most of his life, then converted to Christianity when he was about 98, I believe. Definitely a controversial writer in some ways, always a fascinating thinker.
“A defense of hypocrisy”-nice! Seriously, very interesting. Do I read authors who hold beliefs I don’t share? Yes, but not EVERY author with a different view is worthwhile, in my view. Life is too short to read indiscriminately on the principle that hearing different viewpoints is inherently worthwhile. We can’t avoid making judgments about what books will be useful or educational or good art. I don’t share Dante’s worldview but I checked out his book. You also raise the question of whether it makes sense to avoid authors who don’t practice what they preach…also a tricky one. In trying to decide, I would probably look for signs of self-awareness regarding failures to actualize their own ideals as articulated in their work. So I agree with your point that we can’t expect moral perfection from our artists…except to the extent they explicitly “preach” a particular “virtue.” In that circumstance I tend to think that hypocrisy is still a bad thing, to be called out and shamed.
Hello! I completely agree that hypocrisy should be called out. One must choose what is worth reading and what is not worth reading as there is never enough time to read it all. But, (there's always a but right?) I find myself coming to terms with the reality that for a long time I've allowed others to do my thinking for me rather than reading the controversial work and forming my own opinion based on my own reasoning and logic. This change from trusting other's opinions on a controversial work to reading it myself has been quite illuminating and has really made me understand myself and why I feel certain things. It's been wonderful. I think it leads to the awareness of ourselves that helps us examine our own hypocrisy, which is the most important hypocrisy to discover. Thank you for watching.
@@ItsTooLatetoApologize Right on! Thanks for your response!
Fascinating series of questions you discuss in this video. I'm not very familiar with Seneca, but I do enjoy Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus among the Stoics. Among the many points you bring up, two struck me-
The idea of learning from imperfect people reminded me strongly of the "wounded healer" tradition among many people, the idea that only those who had felt great pain could effect healing. Some even enacted ritual torture or trials to be a shaman or wise one because only one who had suffered could help others who suffered. I think there is wisdom in the idea of someone who is imperfect, who has scars (real or metaphorical) being better equipped to teach and heal.
The other is learning from someone coming from a place of hypocrisy. I do think it is possible to learn something from anyone. An author (who I can't remember at the moment) once wrote that ideas are like guests at at your home. You can bring nearly everyone into the foyer, but decide there if you want them further in the house, or to put them out again. I'll give most anyone a listen, or a read of thier book, but I won't necessarily let it go past that in my mind unless there is something of merit to take in. And it is possible for someone who, for instance, is terrible at relationships to have something genuinely useful to say about them.
That was a very thought-provoking video. Thanks for posting.
This is very interesting. Your comment made me think about those indigenous traditions of passing from adolescence into adulthood all over the globe. I never thought about it in those terms but I think you’re right. I remember learning about them when I was quite young and thinking about how much unnecessary suffering was involved. But wow. It’s the suffering that is the point.
I like the perspective of inviting an idea into your home to get a better look at it, but then seeing if you want to invite it any further. Thank you for sharing.
You make perfect sense.
Whew! Thank goodness!
I really like your refreshing perspective on Seneca. Seneca is my favorite Stoic because he's such a joy to read. Reading him you really feel as if you get to know this guy who lived 2000 years ago.....and you like him!
I do find people who have struggled with failure and other personal shortcomings more interesting than people who appear to be flawless in character because, I myself, have struggled with failure and personal demons. It reminds me of a great book about Merriweather Lewis by Clay Jenkinson titled "The Character Of Merriweather Lewis" in which he states that he finds Lewis more interesting than William Clark because of Lewis's imperfections in contrast to Clark's steadfastness. Jenkinson also mentions that he finds Buzz Aldrin more interesting than Neil Armstrong because of the very same thing. After the Moon landing Buzz struggled with what his life's purpose was and fell into depression and alcoholism and subsequently rebounded from it. Armstrong, in contrast, had no such existential crisis and was nothing ever less than dependable and stable.
Good video!
Thank you for watching. I think those people who don’t “struggle” are mostly a false presentation of themselves they show people. They may not struggle in the same places as someone else, but to not struggle anywhere with anything is in-human. There is strength in showing the vulnerability of one’s failure, there is no courage without fear. There is no strength without failure because if something is effortless, it’s not hard, and if it’s not hard there is no accomplishment.
@@ItsTooLatetoApologize
Very well stated!
I read meditations a few years ago.
At first I was excited just to read the words of a Roman emperor. I partly felt conflicted tho about reading what basically seemed to be his diary.
Would he have wanted that?
How different would it be had he purposefully written it for others?
The overall message strongly resonates with me; I'd definitely call myself a stoic, or atleast someone who "follows" or "practices" it...
That may not be the perfect way to describe it, but I've sort of always a "ces't la vie" kind of attitude... to oversimplify a comparison.
I still have passions, and cares and feelings.. But I accept that I will have highs and lows, successes and failures, and regrets, and one day my life (as I know it) will come to an end, and all my possessions will deteriorate etc.
Looking at that paragraph above, it reminds me of how I felt reading meditations, at times It seemed like Marcus was depressed almost... but I think that's just how it comes off when you read a sentence like "accept that you will have failures" and such.
Anyways, great book, thanks for your insight. I don't quite remember, but my understanding was Marcus didn't "invent" stoicism, but he was merely a practicer of the philosophy that was already fleshed out from earlier Greek stoics.
Did Marcus make any substantive contributions himself in this book, or did he just put the existing philosophy into his own words? I don't quite recall
Hello! I can't say that I know enough about Marcus Aurelius to say definitively, but I have the impression that while he may not have called himself a Stoic he respected and embodied much of their philosophies and was introduced to Stoicism by the philosopher Apollonius.
Stoicism isn't about not having emotions, as I've herd some people criticize it for, but about how to accept the good and the bad in a reasonable way. I quite respect that. Thank you for leaving your thoughts.
Really interesting discussion. The Greeks had a term for the sort of gap that you reference here: akrasia, which roughly translates as "weakness of will" and points to the universal phenomenon of our inability to always in all cases act in the ways that we believe are right or best, or, put slightly differently, hypocrisy. One interesting moral and artistic question is whether or not the existence of akrasia is itself desirable or not. I'm not sure!
Oh, that is interesting. Is akrasia desirable or not? Hmmmmmmmm…this is the question. I’d say anything worthwhile takes work. So, can morals be virtuous if they are easy to uphold? I want to say no. I think akrasia is not necessarily desirable, but essential for growth or even an objective perspective. Of course we’re speaking about general and abstract things. Thank you for sharing!
I wonder what Seneca’s critics would do if they won the lottery. Would they refuse the money saying, “oh no thanks I’m trying to practice stoicism”? Kinda doubt it. I really enjoy Seneca’s letters. They’re easy to read and interesting that they still apply today. Because of Seneca I’ve stopped going to the Coliseum for the gladiator fights. (I still go for the chariot races).
Right? I mean the chariot races are where it’s at. 🤣
Cool video! Ever read Ernst Junger?
I haven’t. Tell me about why his writing speaks to you. Although after a very surface level google search, I feel I have to add Storm of Steel to the war autobiography section of my shelf.
@@ItsTooLatetoApologize Junger was a fascinating figure. Storm of Steel is a great memoir and makes for an interesting contrast with something like All Quiet on the Western Front, since Junger considered his combat experience in the first World War to be a transcendental opportunity, rather than the usual "war is hell" take. He also wrote brilliant essays on pain and freedom. He developed his concept of the anarch (not anarchist), one who lives in perfect inner freedom no matter the external situation imposed by state or society. He develops this idea of the anarch in his philosophical science fiction novel Eumeswil, which I’ve only just started reading. Martin Heidegger said that Junger was the only true Nietzschean he ever met. Junger proved himself an extremely brave man in his combat experience in the first World War, then later when the Nazis took power he wrote a novel critical of the Nazi party while still living his native Germany. He was a soldier, novelist, philosopher, and naturalist who lived to be 102 years old. He was a Nietzschean for most of his life, then converted to Christianity when he was about 98, I believe. Definitely a controversial writer in some ways, always a fascinating thinker.
@@maxmcnabb well, I’m sold. I’ll definitely have to pick up some of his work. Thank you for recommending him.
@@ItsTooLatetoApologize, thank you for your channel. I'm enjoying the videos!
@@maxmcnabb 🤓
Welcome backk
Thank you.