Stoicism and your needs

Post Reply New Topic

If stoicism is not complaining about things (very reductive explanation I know) then how will you get your needs met?

By not following stoicism.

^ A very reductive response

Psychological tricks and crime.

(neither of which have gained me anything I actually need, but it's fun to dream, yes?)

That definition of "stoicism" is sufficiently reductive that it's lost it's meaning relative to the actual concept.

Stoicism doesn't mean "not complaining". Likewise, complaining is neither the only way, nor the most effective way, to get your needs met. Equally so, stating a need and complaining, are not the same thing. It is entirely possible to complain without stating or indicating a need - or to state or indicate a need without complaining.

The simple answer to your question is, state your needs, rather than complain about your needs - and also don't expect people to cater to your needs, just cos you stated them.

It's important to remember that for the most part, nobody is obligated to act upon your needs. It's also important to remember the difference between a need and a want - something many people seem to mix up.

Stoicism is more about handling one's own situation without being irrational about it. One can state a need, issue a grievance, or file a complaint, and do so in a stoic manner. It is far more than simply "not complaining".

[opinion=mine]

For me, stoicism means not expressing my feelings inappropriately, staying sober, eating well, exercising, and denying myself those 'pleasures' that lead to addiction, poverty, and ill health.

There is more to living a 'Stoic' lifestyle than this (if 'Stoic' is even the right word), but that about sums it up.

[/opinion]

stoicism is a philosophy of life.

basics of stoicism

though i think most people dont really understand it so they just go for the modern definition which is more about enduring things without complaint as you said. the negativity of it i think does not inspire people to look into it further.

i think its sad because stoicism is a very interesting philosophy and one that ive found useful personally.

Choosing pleasures wisely and getting along with people sounds like Epicureanism. That is one that gets a false wrap as well.

I think if someone wanted they could lump Epicureanism in with Stoicism but some people like to juxtapose them.

Epicureanism is supposed to be pleasure seeking but really it is about being wise about which pleasures to pursue. It says friendship is a worthy pleasure to be pursued and maintained.

Whereas someone like Socrates liked to argue to the point of needing to choose death or exile. I realize Socrates was before stoicism but they can be lumped together in my book.

Epicurus advocated living in such a way as to derive the greatest amount of pleasure possible during one's lifetime, yet doing so moderately in order to avoid the suffering incurred by overindulgence in such pleasure. Epicurus actively recommended against passionate love, and believed it best to avoid marriage altogether. He viewed recreational sex as a natural, but not necessary, desire that should be generally avoided.

The Stoics are especially known for teaching that "virtue is the only good" for human beings, and that external things, such as health, wealth, and pleasure, are not good or bad in themselves but have value as "material for virtue to act upon".

Thus, the Epicurians emphasized moderation in pleasure, and the Stoics emphasized virtuous indulgence -- another form of moderation.

Besides, Stoicism has attracted a large amount of self-aggrandizing grifters; so if someone talks to you about Stoicism and only presents it as a kind of 'tool' to help you get what you want, and does not talk at all about virtue ethics and civic duty, they are not talking about Stoicism.  If you do not become a better person, specifically in your relation to the world and to other people, after studying Stoicism, you have made a mistake.  A lot of people seem to have even become worse people -- more selfish, more self-important, and less concerned with the feelings of others.

That was interesting and generally accurate.

Most people blame social media for people being more selfish, self important and less concerned about the feelings of others. Other than that I wouldn’t trust myself to accurately come up with a cause unless I was in the business of creating boogeymen.

In regards to stoicism’s pursuit of virtue, some of it is not appealing because they had a different view of it rooted in their Gods. It doesn’t necessarily translate well to today. I am unable to espouse on that further at the moment but it seems to be the case. I would invite someone to discuss that.

I think some of their aversion to recreational sex was due to a lack of birth control and the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases. That is obviously the case to a certain degree.

They certainly were not a fan of recreational sex. I think they looked favorably on marriage as the natural order of things. I invite anyone to dispute that because I am just a guy who likes to read.

As far as grifters go, the world is full of them. I am not sure I would call someone like Ryan Holiday a grifter unless I was being really cynical. Some of it is educational if people are capable of not taking things at face value. I tend to think most people aren’t stupid but in reality they can hardly read I guess. Maybe that is my error.

Someone like Enzelganger is a grifter but he has accumulated quite a bit of content from varied sources that at the very least is interesting for that reason.

Robert Greene’s books are banned in prison but they are full of historical snippets that someone would be hard pressed to come by otherwise. Yes, he uses literary license in his work but it is definitely entertaining.

I may not know a lot about about religion or philosophy but it is more than I would have without the grifters. They are really prolific and search far and wide for content.

I think creating boogeymen is a kind of grifting. It is everywhere.

Vulcan culture on Star Trek has a Stoic flavor.

Stoicism was the first and only philosophy to have at one point significantly influenced mainstream Earth culture. Compared to the work of Plato and Aristotle, it put things in simpler form. For better or worse, they had an answer for everything in their system, as compared to the more open-ended approaches of Plato and Aristotle. Other Greek philosophers called the Stoics "dogmatic".

Stoicism is usually associated with a strong determinism -- everything happens by necessity. Zeus' rational plan and the laws of cause and effect govern every little thing. This had major influence on later monotheisms, as well as later scientific determinism.

Paradoxically, Stoicism is also associated with the origin of the modern concept of free will -- the idea that the will is a separate faculty that can make arbitrary choices. (Personally, I believe neither in rigid determinism nor in arbitrary free will.)

Epictetus famously said that only that which is in our power is good or evil. The best surviving single text of Stoicism is his Discourses, which focus on ethics and a sort of psychology, rather than the whole Stoic system, which also included a holistic, materialistic physics and a system of propositional logic.

There is also a collection of fragments by Long and Sedley that gives a comprehensive view of the Stoic system. There is a good book by Sambursky on Stoic Physics, and one by Mates on Stoic Logic.

I'm only touching the surface here. History of philosophy is one of my special interests.

Last edited by notSpock on 29 Jun 2023, 8:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

More closely addressing the original question, it is quite true that the Stoics say we should not complain about things. But the distinction of Epictetus that only what is in our power is good or evil suggests an answer. Stoicism is not some kind of monastic quietism. Not "complaining" is perfectly compatible with action in the world. Epictetus was banished from Rome for his political activity. Marcus Aurelius was a Roman emperor. Someone who did not take care of their needs would be foolish.

Sounds like a DIY mentality and someone who want to make a difference.

I think a rant is good in a way. Ill have a feeling of wanting to explode if I dont. The opposite is letting it go i suppose. Perhaps its selfish to unload on others. It often winds you up even more and it exhausts others. Journaling, and perhaps throwing it away after, is better.
I think a rant is only useful if you get to a solution and not just get stuck on focussing on problems. Afterall, we only have so much energy to get things done and itd be futile to use it on complaining. Blaming is probably the single most thing that sabotages my life.

DIY is kind of right I think. We are supposed to master our emotions by will power and so on. I think that poses the issue of emotion the wrong way. Emotions aren't just to be "mastered", even if we could.

On the more positive side, Epictetus talks about how to not be so affected by things that disturb us. He suggests that we can be at peace with the things we cannot change anyway, but take action on the things within our power..

Im working on the art of letting things go, acceptance of what is, being assertive on things i can fix and being kind to myself so i have more mental energy for positive change. Im trying to connect to the natural inner peace a bit more.

Now to be able to do that during sensory overload and discombobulation!