[beauHD]

> Can we really use Stoicism to make our lives better, or is it just a ruse to sell more books?

A few takeaways from reading about the Stoic philosophy:

- Focus on what you can control.

- Amor Fati. The love of fate. Transmute everything into a lesson to be learned and something to grow from.

- If it's bearable, endure it with wisdom and grace.

- Does it agree with natural law? Is something in line with nature? If it's an abomination, leave it immediately.

- Memento mori. Remember you will die. Live every day as if it's your last. Don't postpone.

[darth_avocado]

You could argue some of these learnings are why it has become popular?

Millenials and the generations after them have grown up living in a perpetual state of crisis. Economically they are doomed, living from one recession to another, losing more hope of ever having a life as good as their previous generations while working twice as hard.

Climate change is inevitable and unstoppable now. Things are only going to be worse from here on.

Societal cohesion is eroding all across the world.

No wonder people want to focus on what they control and live like every day is their last, because otherwise, it is pretty miserable out there.

[zozbot234]

If you really wanted to reduce Stoicism to "a few takeaways", it's more proper to start from Stoic cosmology, since its ethics directly relates to it. According to Stoics, the universe as we know it is nothing but a manifestation of pure Spirit or Reason, out of which Matter and Force first separated, then the various forces and kinds of matter also became distinct. But everything in the universe is nonetheless ordained according to Reason, and thus is ultimately why we are also told to pursue reason in all of our actions and not let ourselves be affected by damaging 'passions'. It's a rather anti-materialistic philosophy, quite opposed to modern scientism.

[bitexploder]

The original stoics counted "nature" as something close to a proper God. I think not a lot is lost transmuting "nature" to be something more appropriate for modern interpretation of the philosophy though. Nature in a modern interpretation can be thought of the natural order of the universe and the way it is. Although there was also an implied fatalism (e.g. the future is predetermined) to their concept of "nature" which would not sit well with many modern stoics. Just adding some context for what "natural law" is and how modern philosophers have taken to viewing it.

I think many people lack a cohesive life philosophy and stoicism is a keen observation of the human condition that rings true today. Not a lot has truly changed and the ancient Greeks and other philosophers had as much of a valid viewpoint of the human condition as we do today. In many areas science has now filled in blanks that were given more mystical properties in ancient times. I could go on, but Stoics were not dour and fatalistic about the future, their philosophy strongly encouraged them to live in the moment.

[sethammons]

My understanding about logos (nature / god), it is the governing reason of the universe. Because of logos being driven by reason, that which happens in nature or is natural is grounded in reason and serves a purpose. In this way, it is not much different than "God works in mysterious ways." It is a crutch upon which you can place acceptance.

[bitexploder]

I think that is about right.It does not change a lot about living with Stoicism to abandon or update their "nature" to something modern and sensible to the practitioner. For a agnostic/atheist it more or less does not matter in my opinion.

[refactor_master]

> Does it agree with natural law? Is something in line with nature? If it's an abomination, leave it immediately.

How does one distinguish “natural law” with “my opinion on what should be”?