Stoicism seems to be a lost thing these days when everywhere you turn people wish to play the I'm the biggest victim game.
While being stoic may not always be the healthiest way to deal with issues in life, the perpetual victim attitude is also not healthy. It's as if people have adopted the Jehovah's Witness attitude of every rejection being a persecution that they can revel in. Who can be the greatest victim.
That is something that I struggle with - I think people who think you have to take Stoicism all or nothing have it wrong.
But, if you accept that it was average people coming up with the best ideas that they could at the time, that they could wrong, and that you could take what is good and improve on that which is deficient - that is the right way to approach anything generally.
The same for Stoicism - don’t treat it as religious dogma - treat as ideas to wrestle with and learn from.
I believe the reference is to the JW eschatology, which foresees JWs as undergoing a sort of total persecution as a sign of Judgement Times, or Armageddon, or whatever they call it. And, because their form of ministry involves frequently talking to and attempting to convert strangers, they encounter many and various forms of rejection, including critiques, that are understood as harbingers of coming persecution. In this sense daily life comes to reaffirm a broader millenarian vision of the future.
phew.
So, I think the analogy is meant to say that our current era's secular glorification of victimhood achieves a similar goal by encoding quotidienne experiences of failure or rejection with a larger meaning, in this case being part of an oppressed group.
How is stoicism lost when people talk about it on hackers news like every day.
Also, sometimes people are actually victims of s something, even if small injustice. And from experience, trying to act like it is no issue never solves it.
The idea is not that you should act like it is no issue... you should act that it is an issue that you can do something about.
Being stoic is not giving up on the world altogether; it is understanding what you can control. You can control how you handle a situation if you do not view yourself as a victim. The moment you start thinking that you are a victim, you lose control of the situation.
Some people truly ARE VICTIMS - but it is rare that thinking that you have some power over the situation and there is something that you can do about it is a bad idea.
If someone steals from you, you are victim of robbery. If someone rapes you, you are victim of rape. If your collegues assume you are not skilled cause something about your look, you are victim of bias. If your partner is verbaly abusing you, you are victim of that.
Thinking you are victim in those situations is using right words instead of building taboos.
The moment you admit yourself you was victim of something, you can act on it. If you don't, you end up like one of those victims that will ratilnalize their abusers behavior.
There is no shortage of women who instead of admitting they are victims and admitting partner is abuser, just don't want to be those girls. And they will excuse and rationalize and keep appearances.
So, first and foremost - apologies. I had read two replies and put them together in my head when replying to you. So, yes, I agree with what you are saying here.
The idea that I was trying to get at is that you can accept that you were a victim and do something about it. We are saying the same thing - but you are saying it better, so sorry for the confusion.
Additionally, some people are victims of situations - so say, poor family background, a minority race that is looked down upon by the majority, having a chronic illness - and you can accept that is true but mentally decide that you are going to take steps to make it better, however you can.
You don't want to land in "I have no control and am a victim" when you are being victimized. That is what you are getting at too.
As a society, we don't want to create a society where anyone being abused feels like continuing to be abused is actually better than looking for help / making a change. That's not the victim's fault... that's someone choosing what they see as the best of two not attractive outcomes.
No, if you are robbed you aren’t the victim. No more than you are the victim for tripping on your shoe laces. You make choices and those choices have consequences. Don’t tie your shoes? Trip! Go out in a sketchy area late at night? Robbed! You put yourself in the situation, and if you didn’t like the result, you change your actions. Seeing it as something done to you I think is the exact opposite of the main message.
This logic just seems twisted. Of course i could have avoided event x, if i had made some other choice at some previous point in time. The whole point of living in society is to offset some personal responibilty to the community so that individuals can live without having to constantly think of all possible negative consequences their actions might potentially bring. What you describe in your comment is little more than victim blaming, not even one step away from blaming rape victims for dressing immodestly.
“Epictetus was telling his students there can be no such thing as being the ‘victim’ of another. You can only be ‘victim’ of yourself.”
So no, I’m not victim blaming, I’m reading the article on what it means to be stoic. Obviously you disagree with the premise. Or... does being a stoic mean you support victim blaming?
You can get robbed anywhere (yes, even if the area isn't "sketchy") and if you do, it's not your fault. Of course, this does not mean that afterward you shouldn't take the right steps (perhaps you'll go to the police, or take self-defense classes). Knowing that it could have happened to anyone doesn't take away from your agency.
But if you are stoic it is not the offenders fault either. You are only promised suffering and it is up to you to manage that suffering. Maybe nobody on HN wants to be a stoic.
Things happen and time can only move in one direction. What use does it serve to wallow in victimhood and self-pity VS adopting a stoic attitude to events?
Cause people who adopt stoic attitude to evens do not make change. They don't get what they were supposed to, they don't make world better. They are passive.
They easily turn into enablers. They end up tempted to claim injustice does not happen further gasslighting victims trying to fight.
Speaking as someone who used to think stoic attitude is superior.
It's a response to a pretty unfair characterization of people who recognize themselves as victims. The reason some are irritated with people who claim to be victims is because of their activity and action, not because of their wallowing and passivity. When people are wallowing in victimhood rather than speaking up about it, the people who have a problem with that are the compassionate, not the comfortable and resentful. Wallowing in victimhood is depression.
The person i responded to is misunderstanding it the same way when he is building taboo around word victim.
As for what after, it would be complicated to answer. I am changing attitudes toward more activity, more willing to show up anger or other emotions when not showing them is the passivity road.
FYI I'm the same person, and I'm not building a taboo around the word victim.
Stoicism doesn't advocate for you to be less active. Again, you're misunderstanding the base definition of stoicism. This is much of the same argument I hear about buddhism over here where people somehow think it's a religion of nihilism.
Be a victim or more angry or whatever you like, but it's not going to provide solace, meaningful help or generally better outcomes to you in any situation, plus other people will respond less effectively to it.
This is from one of the articles linked in the linked source, using a metaphor around the idea I tried to share above. You can "play the game of life as best you can," (which includes hopefully bettering the lives of others in addition to yourself) but just don't let it define you.
"In this case, Epictetus said everybody should play the game of life-that the best play it with "skill, fonn, speed and grace." But like most games, you play it with a ball. Your team devotes all its energies to getting the ball across the line.
But after the game, what do you do with the ball? Nobody much cares. It's not worth anything. The competition, the game, was the thing. You play the game with care, making sure you are never making the external a part of yourself, but merely lavishing your skill in regard to it.
The ball was just "used" to make the game possible, so just roll it under the porch and forget it, let it wait for the next game. Most important of all, just don't covet it, don't seek it, don't set your heart on it. It is this latter route that makes externals dangerous, makes them the route to slavery"
Interesting point - I've always thought the stoic ideal was that each individual takes charge / responsibility for their own life and tries to live a good life. THEN, if everyone is doing that, as a society, we are better off.
Like it is this "first focus on yourself, and then maybe the world around you might be a bit better for everyone" type mentality.
So, the best version of you could involve sharing and hoping that others follow a similar philosophy - but at the same time you need to not define yourself as having failed if others disregard it?
But I just think that is not completely correct either - a big part of Stoicism, unless I am missing something, is also being a better person holistically.
A world where everyone doesn't care about things generally (like a popular negative generalization of Stoicism) doesn't ever work.
A world where everyone is focused on being the best version of themselves might work better than everyone being focused on making the best world. I think that gets looped into Stoic teaching as well.
Y'know, I don't think I've ever heard someone use that exact sentence, but I think it's an ok distillation for parts of stoicism (depending on your definition of better, that word has a lot of baggage when applied to human beings), especially the parts Seneca focuses on if I'm recalling them correctly.
Ultimately I think the problem is trying to distill it down to a single sentence. Perhaps I was in error in attempting to provide a better example of something that cannot be done adequately, it may have just caused more confusion.
While being stoic may not always be the healthiest way to deal with issues in life, the perpetual victim attitude is also not healthy. It's as if people have adopted the Jehovah's Witness attitude of every rejection being a persecution that they can revel in. Who can be the greatest victim.
Let us strive for balance and not the extremes.