I appreciate the trichotomy of control model (Irvine was my own introduction to stoicism), and I think ultimately we should take advantage of every model that is useful, but I’ve also found Donald Robertsons “rebuttal” convincing and useful too. He argues that if something appears to be something over which we have “some” control, then we need to break it down into further components. In the winning a tennis match example, this would mean we can control the effort of our training, what coaches we trust, what strategy we use, whether we let our frustration take over if we fall behind, etc, but we still recognize that the outcome of the game is not within our control.

@NarrativeAcademy

10 ай бұрын

Precisely what I was thinking!

Sometimes im so inspired by people like you. I wish you good luck with your internet activity!

I think that the trichotomy of control is a confused interpretation of the dichotomy of control. If you look more closely at those things that you think you have partial control, it splits neatly into both categories. Say winning the tennis match is considered partial control, but in actual you have full control in how much you prepare for the match, how much sleep you were getting prior to the match while the direction of sunlight, the opponent you are matched against isn’t in your control. It’s about how closely you look at the problem.

@SikOfBS

3 ай бұрын

The "trichotomy" is nothing to focus on. It merely adds unnecessary mud to an already clear pond. The Dichotomy of Control with a basic true understanding of what Stoicism is really opens the door, and let's a lot of the fluff and nonsense out.

We appreciate your insights. We will always support you.

This is great thank you. I'm just trying to get into Stoicism. I bought a few books, but this sort of content is really useful to boil down what sometimes feel overwhelming. So thank you. Keep these coming!

This was fantastic! Couldn’t catch it live but first live stream I watched of yours & so much accessible and implementable info, brilliant! I’d love it if you did one on Stoicism & death, thinking about it always panicks me a bit, so I’d love to hear a Stoic perspective…

Man, I really love your channel. thank you for existing hahahaha. You should do a livestream about the philosophy of power and its modern use, I think it would be fun... and interesting.

These streams are fantastic. Thank you for doing them

I agree with Ryan Holidays' assessment that thr Stoic weren't stupid. If they wanted to trichotomy of control framework, they would have. They didn't because they felt the dichotomy was A: more parsimonious, and B: more accurate, because typically anything can be broken down to parts which are or are not within your locus of control, and that influence and control are not synonyms, thus the distinction is valid. At the same time, I also agree that it doesn't much matter either way, and you should use whichever model you personally prefer and find most valuable.

, So, Stoicism's "Dichotomy of Control" is the origin of the current trendy pop psychology mantra, "What other people think of me is none of my business!" Fascinating, the way snake oil sellers, like Tony Robbins, and Mel What's Her Name, take ideas that have true value and turn them into sound bytes, just to make money. That is why I like this channel - Jared discusses philosophy instead of saying whatever will sell. It's the difference between teaching and preaching. But, the pop gurus are so popular because, like any fundamentalist preacher, they tell us WHAT to think, rather than HOW to think, and humans, myself included, prefer the easy way, the " just microwave and serve" version of life. To till the soil, plant the seeds, nuture the plants, harvest the vegetables, then preserve and eventaully cook them, takes far more time and effort than we want to expend. Substitue philosophy and cultivation of the mind for the vegetables, and, well is it any wonder that life can be so tricky? It is natural to want life to be easy (peaceful, calm serene, comfortable, etc.), but the real (physical) world is so complicated.

I had heard so many good things about the 48 laws of power and then found a copy at my parents' house after someone left it there. I couldn't believe the content although in hindsight perhaps it was obvious that a book aiming to cover every aspect of pursuing power would include manipulation. I did get some value out of it though. When I read the chapter on being unpredictable so people are always on edge, I realised my actions towards my kids could be similar. By not being consistent with my children, I was creating that uncertainty for them. In the end, I basically adopted the opposite of most of the advice it provided.

I believe that the idea that "death is not that bad" is a sound idea, if you believe in the concept that death is simply a door to the next existence; that the soul is immortal and that we are on this physical plane to add to the evolution of our higher (spiritual) selves. It is a common concept (especially in Eastern philosophy) that our physical (mortal) existence is a fleeting part of our immortal existence and that we are here to evolve our spiritual selves through the disposal of ego and the unconditional embracing of virtue, love, wisdom - many traits that can be said to be stoic. If we embrace this belief then the concept that "death is not that bad" is a very easy concept to accept.

@amw6846

10 ай бұрын

...I haven't read widely of the Stoics, but I wouldn't assume dependence on immortality as the reason that death is not so bad. Epicureans also thought death was kind of neutral but also that death was annihilation. Because death is annihilation, you shouldn't fear it because it's not like you're going to be having a negative experience after you die. Similarly, you're not going to be experiencing positive stuff after you die. And...you're ultimately going to die, all of us will. Being afraid of death is being afraid of something that you have no control over and will, after you die, have no sensations of any kind associated with it.

10/10 Content!

I believe that the dichotomy of control is different depending on your external world when it comes to being stoic. For example, in the world in which we live, the external demands on our time and on our minds are centred on the accumulation of material things (money in Rufus' estimation) - at least enough to live comfortably to meet our basic needs. That takes us away from being truly stoic. You could say that the balance of the things we can and cannot control is heavily weighted to things we cannot control - because of those external demands. If I lived in a collectivist, agricultural environment, where everyone contributed equally to the benefit of the group, I could envision that the external factors that I cannot control leave me enough time to be mindful of my internal things that I can control and I can be more stoic. Or the alternative is the solitary life where one allows nothing in ones life to create a need for the accumulation of wealth or of material things. Ego plays a big part in this, because if we are able to let go of the ego and egotistical needs, we are more likely to live an isolated (from material society), minimalist, mindful and stoic life where our external world and our internal world consist mostly of that we can control - and because of that, we are able to be as truly stoic as we possibly can. I say isolated, because it would be difficult (in the world in which we live) to find people of like mind who we could live with in this state. In the Confucian tradition, this is to enlighten ones self to that of the superior being (man in Confucian times). Sometimes when I wonder whether real stoicism is even possible in the western (material) world in which I live, I feel that it may not be possible at all, because the material needs of living in this world are so great, that the dichotomy of control is too heavily weighted to that which we cannot control.

Thanks for this. If you were so inclined, I’d love to see some content from you on the philosophy of friendship - a popular topic for ancient philosophers, if I understand correctly.

@_jared

10 ай бұрын

That's a great idea.

The "trichotomy" is nothing to focus on. It merely adds unnecessary mud to an already clear pond. The Dichotomy of Control with a basic, and true understanding of what Stoicism is really opens the door, and let's a lot of the fluff and nonsense out. There are so many channels out there that really do not understand what Stoicism is, and either twist, or downplay it because they didn't like a specific thing they read, or didn't fully understand it. People are fast to claim it's about hiding, or suppressing emotions, and as soon as you hear this, you know you're not dealing with someone who missed it. It's that simple. Trying to explain it away, or water it down is expected these days. Our job is to see through the BS, and make certain the facts are presented over opinion. But, it's youtube, so it's a needle in a hay stack to find many channels that actually teach/know what Stoicism actually is.

William Irvine’s “trichotomy” doesn’t help Stoicism; it undercuts Stoicism in a Peripatetic direction. His book is on the top of my ANTI-recommended list of books on Stoicism.

@romeoaranjon5178

10 ай бұрын

I did not find the idea anti-Stoic. I did associate it with preferred and disprefered indifferents. Can you explain why it’s not something you would recommend to Stoics?

@charleshogg5459

10 ай бұрын

@@romeoaranjon5178 Stoicism has two kinds of value: good and bad, on the one side, and preferred and dispreferred, on the other side. The line between those two different kinds of value should be kept very bright and very clear...especially for beginners. Note Epictetus' saying "But, for the present, *totally suppress desire*: for, if you desire any of the things which are not in your own control, you must necessarily be disappointed; and of those which are, and which it would be laudable to desire, nothing is yet in your possession. Use only the appropriate actions of pursuit and avoidance; and even these lightly, and with gentleness and reservation. "

@romeoaranjon5178

10 ай бұрын

@@charleshogg5459 thank you for the response. I get where you are getting your thought process.

just missed it :(

@_jared

10 ай бұрын

My plan is to start doing this weekly, so hopefully I’ll see you next time!

Somebody psychoanalyze why Americans are so drawn to Stoicism. I think it’s because people feel powerless. In the Soviet Union this type of phenomenon was called “internal immigration” because of how people would become disinterested in the world around them out of despair. I see something similar happening in the US, except it has that added grindset mentality about to it.

@Efesus67

7 ай бұрын

You might be suffering from 1) confirmation bias and 2) ignorance. 1) You want to see the view of a specific ideology (cultural Marxism in this case). 2) It's not Stoicism that Americans are attracted to, it is being stoic that a small subset of Americans are attracted to. Philosophical Stoics and bro-stoics are not the same thing.