Back in school I thought Stoics and Epicureans were two opposite camps: one was all about pleasure, the other was sad people who just endured everything. Turns out a 2000+ year old philosophy has way more interesting ideas than that.
Here's my take: if you replace Stoic determinism (everything is predetermined by the cosmos/logos) with Sartre's radical existentialist freedom (you are fundamentally free and build your own fate), you get Stoic ethics that actually work without the mysticism — and put way more responsibility in your own hands.
In this neo-Stoic framework, the role of a human being actually makes sense:
- Serve the virtues: wisdom, courage, justice, temperance - Create value for people and nature around you, receive value in return - Accept all events as part of one system (where death is closer to thermodynamics than something bad followed by punishment or eternal bliss)
Within this framework it's much easier to believe that the purpose of human existence is not dragging cards in Jira, not writing bureaucratic reports, and not doing pointless work that will be automated anyway.
A person should strive toward creation — where their work has real meaning and real significance, for themselves and for others. Whether you're a developer or a cobbler.
Most of the influential and successful people I personally know build things not to make more money, but because they desperately want to solve a problem they see around them. That's their service.
And it's within this system that it becomes easier to face hard events with dignity — knowing you can influence them, but with varying degrees of success.
If you want to go deeper, read from Marcus Aurelius to Massimo Pigliucci. It's all the same framework, just applied to different realities.
I’d be happy to discuss this thoughts with smart people
A_D_E_P_T•1h ago
That's not a religion. The common people -- for illustrative purposes you may call them the proles, if you'd like -- must have a picture of the world that answers the big metaphysical questions. Religion is folk metaphysics, not folk philosophy.
This is why the Mormons and Bahai have a religion -- however new and recently-developed -- and the Stoics/Epicureans have never been more than a niche and passing interest.
You disparage mysticism, but it's the key ingredient, like it or not. It's ultimately too easy, too facile, to believe something like "stoicism is correct; I should become a stoic" -- it sidesteps all of the heavy metaphysical lifting.