Do you have small kids? Just curious, because having a small helpless human dependent on you for their survival and well being has made me change my attitude towards life a bit away from Stoicism.
A right way to live with children is of course different from without children, but I don't think the two are incompatible?
In fact, I think having children is helpful in improving your own attitudes, because it can be really put you to the test.
I also think it can be helpful to have some kind of idea of what being a good human entails. For instance, instead of yelling "Don't do that!" I sometimes manage to ask "How does X look like? Are they happy?"
Of course, one must respect that children have their own lives and are starting afresh - the set of values we've determined for ourselves isn't necessarily something we should interpret too strictly in the context of a child who hasn't yet had the chance to experience the world.
It's also worth noting that the noted stoic philosopher and emperor Marcus Aurelius had completely worthless personal relationships, especially a son who ended up being remarkably poorly-raised. I saw a lot of folks who adhered to stoicism raise their kids very poorly: I don't know whether that's correlation (I think proximate causal factor is never seeing their kids) or causation.
My first is on the way. I can't say for sure what my views will be in 5 years, but even with pregnancy I know there are things that could go wrong. Will I suffer if something goes awry? Absolutely. But will I let it adversely affect my future state of being? I hope not.
Why do you suppose that is? I don't have kids myself, but if I ever did I think I would prioritize the incorporation of stoicism into their upbringing.
Just as a stab in the dark, perhaps you perceive the philosophy of stoicism as being orthogonal to a healthy amount of flippancy in life? If that's the case then I would make the case that the two concepts aren't actually mutually exclusive.
Not OP. Anecdotally stoicism does nothing for your capability to nurture your children or make actively wise choices. The best example of this is the painfully obvious one of Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus.
The main failure for the Roman empire was that he failed to name a successor worthy to the task, so Commodus got the gig. I don't know what his failures as a father were or were there any but Commodus came out just wrong either way.
Either this teaches us one of two things or both: 1. even a wise sage is unable to heal his family or 2. Stoicism does not grant you universal wisdom.
Either way, the outcome is that stoicism is obviously not a universal remedy.
If you read Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, the take out message is that the world is shit and people are horrible, but that is no reason not to behave as a gentleman and carry yourself with dignity.
Stoicism can be applied by personal choice to various situations in ones life, but it's hard to make it into a socially pro-active philosophy.
And yes, I generalized whole lot of stuff based on one example only. Call me bayesian.
A right way to live with children is of course different from without children, but I don't think the two are incompatible?
In fact, I think having children is helpful in improving your own attitudes, because it can be really put you to the test.
I also think it can be helpful to have some kind of idea of what being a good human entails. For instance, instead of yelling "Don't do that!" I sometimes manage to ask "How does X look like? Are they happy?"
Of course, one must respect that children have their own lives and are starting afresh - the set of values we've determined for ourselves isn't necessarily something we should interpret too strictly in the context of a child who hasn't yet had the chance to experience the world.