Hacker News Reader

Comment by FigurativeVoid | Hacker News Reader

I tend to not like stoicism and similar ideologies that have a component of "suffering is noble."

There are certain things in life that you must be able to abide, but suffering is suffering. Reducing suffering for ourselves and for others is a good thing.

These systems can lead to the perverted notion that suffering is good, and that we should just allow it to happen. We should not. We should reduce suffering for ourselves and for others when we can.

View on HN

My only hesitation with Stoicism is there seems to be a path that leads from "do I have control over this?" to "not my problem". And the "not my problem" response is apathy towards things you might be able to exert a minor force towards that manifests into an appreciable outcome. Assuming we're not omniscient, and we don't know how much control we actually have over things. What seems like a terrible issue outside of control may be turned into a less severe issue with some effort. Or am I misunderstanding Stoicism?

There is a further subdivision within the class of things over which you have no control (the indifferents). There are the preferred indifferents and the dispreferred ones [1].

I think the idea is not to be apathetic toward indifferents, but rather to not let yourself fall into dispair if something out of your own control doesn't go your way, at least that's how I choose to interpret it.

[1]: https://iep.utm.edu/stoiceth/#H3

Everything in life is suffering. The one surefire way to "reduce suffering for ourselves and for others when we can" is letting go of our attachments, cravings and improper desires (while of course feeling free to cultivate good aspirations so as to replace those undesirable cravings - such as the virtuous aspiration of becoming a sage and helping enlighten the world at large), and Stoicism gives us lots of good suggestions as to how to achieve this.

> I tend to not like stoicism and similar ideologies that have a component of "suffering is noble."

Do you have a reference for this? This is the first time I’ve heard of the idea.

I think this might be a skewed misinterpretation of the idea that you should not let the threat of suffering subvert your moral principles. I would be happy to look for a precise reference from the discourses of Epictetus if you are interested.

If you think that Stoicism says that suffering is noble, then you don't understand Stoicism. It focuses on emotional tools that let you do what you think is important, without normal difficulties causing you undue suffering. And it is PERFECTLY consistent with Stoicism that what you think is important can be reducing suffering for yourself and others if you can.

Therefore a wish to reduce suffering is a reason to study Stoicism, and not a reason to reject it.

You still might not think that Stoicism is worth learning about. But you shouldn't be rejecting it for the wrong reasons.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com