Conversation

that's not disputed. the problem is telling someone else what they can or can't control, esp coming from a place of privilege. stoicism sounds a lot like "just accept your lot" which is good advice in many cases, but reinforces the status quo as a normative theory for living
1
The idea that your choices and mine are separable prima facie before moral/ethical considerations are entertained is a basic weakness in all conservative philosophies (and stoicism is one). It implicitly assumes the legitimacy of the status quo so long as you personally can cope
Image
1
1
Basically under sufficient privilege a stoic posture is either naïveté or hypocrisy. If my adversity is trivial, handling it with stoic grace says nothing about whether I’m more moral/stronger etc than someone throwing screaming tantrums under far greater stressors.
1
Of course not! I think I see the divergence here. Yes, virtue ethics where virtue = bearing something stoically, means virtue is more available to some than others. I guess I just mentally filter that stuff out & try to take the good bits about understanding scope of action.
2
In some ways it seems like a category error to call stoicism an ideology or ethic at all under modern conditions. It’s closer to a consumption aesthetic, like minimalism. A performed aesthetic of bearing, composure etc. I honestly find it hard to take seriously. Reads larp to me.
2
3
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Show replies