Musings of a failed Stoic.
Sarte once said that hell is other people.
For a good while, I tried very hard to live by the Stoic ethos of living in equanimity with other people. Anyone who is familiar with stoic teachings soon will realize that there is almost a Kantian duty of living with self-respect and promoting the good in humankind and with respect to other people who also share a piece of the divine logos.
However, people can be mean, cruel, deceitful, and all the other host of attitudes and behaviors that cause disenfranchisement and unhappiness. I might be committing a hasty overgeneralization here; but, I tend to be a guarded and meek individual. The problem I have recognized in myself with respect to stoic philosophy is that I have essentially started hating any strong emotions. Due to this, I have isolated myself from situations that would arouse myself too strongly. Essentially, I have projected my biased opinion of people onto the sum total of mankind.
Being a misanthrope is perhaps the antithesis of stoic philosophy, yet here I am spouting a misanthropic tune about people in general. What to do?
For a good while, I tried very hard to live by the Stoic ethos of living in equanimity with other people. Anyone who is familiar with stoic teachings soon will realize that there is almost a Kantian duty of living with self-respect and promoting the good in humankind and with respect to other people who also share a piece of the divine logos.
However, people can be mean, cruel, deceitful, and all the other host of attitudes and behaviors that cause disenfranchisement and unhappiness. I might be committing a hasty overgeneralization here; but, I tend to be a guarded and meek individual. The problem I have recognized in myself with respect to stoic philosophy is that I have essentially started hating any strong emotions. Due to this, I have isolated myself from situations that would arouse myself too strongly. Essentially, I have projected my biased opinion of people onto the sum total of mankind.
Being a misanthrope is perhaps the antithesis of stoic philosophy, yet here I am spouting a misanthropic tune about people in general. What to do?
Comments (39)
I have a similar problem. I try to follow Jesus’ philosophy, but it is really fricking hard to love Nazis. However, I am an INFP personality, so it often seems like almost everyone else is a Nazi! lol
I am trying to avoid toxic people, but when I can’t I am going to try to kill them with kindness. We will see how successful I am, though.
Quoting Wallows
If you were to act that way, would it make you happy?
Quoting Wallows
Best part is hate isn't a reflexive relation. You may hate me but it's possible I don't hate you.
However, there may be a symmetry. The hate may be mutual.
I guess everybody must hate something. Me, I hate myself.
Not entirely. I recognize that toxic people are around and about in the world, it's just that I seem to be committing a gross overgeneralization with some sort of prejudice against people in general. I am aware that the world is full of good people and such; but, I seem to disregard that fact and focus on the rotten few that can make your world a hell.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
Well, to summarize the OP there's a profound cognitive dissonance presented in the OP. So, yeah...
What I can say about this is that my hatred is due to the "burden of trying to be a Stoic", by which I mean, that the amount of effort required to actually be a stoic is very high. It's not an easy task, being a stoic.
Quoting Tzeentch
"to act", what do you mean by that?
Hate is typically a bad thing. But, that's the issue here. I feel one way; but, my mind is telling me that the feeling is misguided. What to do?
I'm not sure that Sartre did anyone any favors by coming up with that line in No Exit.
Quoting Wallows
Is there any guru, philosopher, prophet, or saint, who offers a good one-bowl-just-add-water cake mix for happiness? No. Zeno letting you down, just when you were counting on him? Typical.
@Noah Te Stroete is trying to rely on Jesus; apparently it's not going well with the Nazis he's running into. Do I have an answer? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!
Life sucks. Our task: Get through the day as pleasantly as possible, sleep as well as we can. Repeat. Fitting into the various schemes of this or that guru, saint, or crackpot has to be fairly low on the list.
Nothing wrong with Zeno, of course. Or Jesus. Or Bitter Crank, for that matter. It just that in the final analysis, getting through life is an individual's always-unique lonely struggle. No matter which philosopher, saint, god, or guru you consult, nobody has an easy formula.
So carry on. Complaining often helps one feel better. Unload, move on. Take care. Good luck. Best wishes.
You expressed that you feel people can be mean, cruel, deceitful, to name a few things, and that you term yourself as somewhat of a misanthrope because of this. If you were to exhibit these behaviors, would it make you any happier?
But, the Stoic says that one should not feel bitter over that fact, and to continue on one's journey despite this claim derived from experience. This is the quintessential ideal manifest in Stoic philosophy. That is to disregard such a sentiment and endure. It can be torturous.
I don't understand how you can hate all people? Misanthropy means that right?
What is it that all people possess, the cause of misanthropy? That such a word exists tells us that there is something unappetizing about being human.
The answer may vary. If I were to be asked the question, I might hate humans because they're the only animals capable of cruelty/sadism. It sucks to be able to hurt and enjoy it.
What is your answer to ''what is it about people that you hate?'' What is the source of your misanthropy?
I don't think this is relevant. I don't need to reciprocate negativity with negativity. Nothing good comes out of it. I'm just highlighting the dichotomy between feeling and thinking with stoic philosophy.
It is the arising sentiment about bad behavior that other people can display, which is derived from experience, whilst trying to maintain composure, through stoicism.
It's as if one were to live with a Pollyanna sense of optimism or to be confined to a perpetual state of cognitive dissonance in regards to experiencing life as a Stoic.
It would be near impossible to profess pity towards people who spit on you, don't you think? Again, we seem to be talking about ideals contra-reality.
The Stoical response is to be indifferent towards such behaviors...
It may be for you, but it doesn't have to be.
One finds that people who act in such negative fashion are rarely happy, and their negative behavior tends to be an act of denial towards their self-perceived inadequacies and not an act of healing them. So really the one they are hurting is primarily themselves.
I underscored ''can'' above. It indicates possibility only and not actuality does it. People can be bad but [I]are[/i] they in practice?
A simple answer is ''no''. People may think bad things but they don't act badly. There's a filter between thought and action and that may be relevant to your misanthropy.
Who was it that said ''ought implies can''. The contrapositive equivalent would be ''can't implies not an ought''. People can't control their thoughts. I don't know a lot about meditation but according to it, thoughts are spontaneous and never-ending and beyond control. So, people thinking bad thoughts are not doing it intentionally. Why hold that against anyone?
However, we can pick and choose which thoughts to act on. Therefore, we are to be held accountable for our actions but not our thoughts.
What I mean is you should look at people's actions (actuality/is), rather than thoughts (possibility/can). Perhaps you'll hate people less for the predicament everyone is in or love them for being intentionally positive despite being unable to control their thoughts (good AND bad).
Remember I said that it's cruelty and sadism that I hate about humans and I realize that this too is a ''can'' thing, a possibility. If seems I've disregarded my own observation that we should evaluate people on actions (actuality) and not on thoughts (can/possibility).
Having said that, there are truths that refute my claim. For instance, the police force and the law indicate that all is not well. If given the chance, people will choose to behave badly, vindicating your misanthropy based as it is on the badness of people. Yet, we may ask why isn't anarchy the prevalent state of affairs?
I come now to the unacceptable face of Stoicism their wider value system and their belief that everything except character or more generally rationality is in the end indifferent. Of course anyone who reached the Stoic ideal of wisdom would regard everything else as indifferent and then would be (almost) free of emotion. But Stoic sages were rarer than the phoenix.1 What I want to stress in this chapter is that the theory of indifference was not an essential part of Stoic therapy. It was one of their reasons their own peculiar reason for taking freedom from emotion (apatheia) as an ideal. I shall discuss apatheia in the next two chapters but we do not have to agree with that ideal in order to learn from the Stoics how to get rid of unwanted emotions. And in getting rid of them we do not have to resort to their theory of indifference. Before I can show this I must explain what the theory of indifference is.
https://www.giffordlectures.org/books/emotion-and-peace-mind/12-stoic-indifference-barrier-therapy
----------
You don't have to agree with the theory of indifference to benefit from a Stoic therapy.
There are some daily exercises that might be useful. Or not.
https://dailystoic.com/10-insanely-useful-stoic-exercises/
What do you mean by that? Thanks for the link, quite interesting.
What do you think I mean by that ?
Stop allowing yourself to be unduly disturbed by things beyond your control--which would include "people in general."
As Epictetus said (I quote from memory): "Do the best you can with what is in your power, and take the rest as it happens."
Thought or feeling for him would not be a problem given an austere regime for training for equanimity in chaos.
Stoicism would likely involve training oneself not just by Wallowing (the limiting cycles of your activity and responsibilities), but by enduring what isn't necessary to endure. Taleb's concept of antifragility might be useful here. Someone who voluntarily endures what they normally avoid is better equipped to handle the unsuspected unpleasant. Common sense?
Easy to say. I am unable to get past the burden of Stoicism manifest in this quote from Marcus Aurelius:
Quoting Marcus Aurelius
Really? Begin each morning with negative visualizations of people in general? Who does this to themselves?
Marcus was an emperor of Rome. He had to deal with the duties of his court which meant that he had to deal with these kinds of people on a daily basis. I don’t think he would expect the same from you.
Stoicism requires discipline, and practice. But in many things it is simply the application of intelligence to circumstances encountered. Many people do wrong. If you can stop them from doing wrong, do so. If you can't, their conduct is to be regretted, but it's of no use to let yourself be overwhelmed by their character or conduct, and it's within your power not to be.
Part of stoic practice is to anticipate uncomfortable and even terrible situations as a means to prepare for them if they occur. The Cynic Diogenes the Dog lived in a barrel, it's said. Some would find that more difficult than "negative visualization."
That much I understand.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
How? We live in a postmodernist society where anything flies and everyone is entitled to their opinion. I suspect it was much "easier" being a stoic back in the days of ancient Rome.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Yes, but I find stoicism to be in some ways at odds with human nature despite the appeals to being in accordance with nature. My resentment is the nullification of legitimate feelings, like anger, and their repression. I mean where else does it go?
But, do whatcha gotta do.
Epictetus was a slave of a freedman in the court of Nero. He probably didn't have an easy life in that place. It's said his master (or someone) deliberately broke his leg, rendering him lame for life. Marcus Aurelius spent most of his reign as Emperor on campaign in the forests of Germania.
Quoting Wallows
Perhaps, but when someone says or does something, or tries to do something wrong and its in our power to rebuke or stop them, we should do so regardless of their opinion.
Quoting Wallows
It's not so much repression as intelligent regulation, and a recognition that much as we may want to, we can't control others no matter how much we hate them. We will get angry, but we need not trash our hotel room or break windows or break jaws, or act maliciously or vindictively. We need not allow our anger to consume us. We need not hate, or plot revenge.
See, that's the sort of stuff that is beyond my capacity to be indifferent about. It's just plain wrong.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
How is that even possible in the kind of world we live in?
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
What does intelligent regulation even mean?
Stoicism is an attitude. Misanthropy is a way of being. You can choose both.
And if you are not a misanthrope, you are doing philosophy wrong.
You say that both can be professed concomitant, yet my OP clearly demonstrates that there's some snag somewhere. Care to untangle the knot?
Quoting Wallows
Hate is a strong emotion.
Shit's gonna happen. Adopt an attitude of acceptance.
Indeed, emotions, tricky thing that verge into the Frankfurtian realm of lower order volition's and higher order volition's.
Quoting Banno
Easier said than done.
Yes.
Do you meditate? See, perhaps, Sam Harris's Waking up app.
I do some meditation in bed while laying down. Not sure if that counts.
Thanks for the app, I'll give it a whirl.
You have talked of your problems with Stoicism before:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/15494
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4589/the-lame-stoic
If you have spent time reading and following up on other posters' responses, why are you still apparently in this mental quandary ? Is it that you expect easy answers on how to deal with people or life ?
There is no easy way, as you know. There is no single perfect philosophy.
You say you are unable to get past the burden of an ancient morning meditation which you perceive as a negative visualisation.
I see Marcus as preparing himself mentally for the day ahead. His workload as Roman Emperor was a heavy one. Amongst other things he had to spend time addressing matters of law such as petitions and hearing disputes.
Rather than being negative about people in general, he was quite the realist. He knew the different types he would have to deal with. His writings were addressed to himself as a reminder to be patient with those who had poor quality of character and behaviour. Basically, it was because they did not know any better.
It is perhaps wise not to pick out quotes without giving context. Or reading the whole story. The variations between early, late Stoicism and the philosophers within this tradition; it is complex and yet simple. Extract what is useful to you to find peace of mind and to interact with the world. And then get on with living.
So, to those who spend a high percentage of time wallowing with ongoing musings on a philosophy forum, Marcus might turn your question round and ask : 'Who would do that to themselves ?'