This is so interesting. I've talked to a few people about how social media influencers, as the 21st century equivalent of the TV commercial celebrities of the 80s and 90s, are focussed on materialism, consumerism and appearance. There's much to be said for shunning those things and focussing on care, kindness and giving - the real human things that will be left behind in the hearts of people when we're gone
Quite so. The problem is money and possessions is not money and possessions. It is that quest for more never stops. This intense focus on acquisition often comes at the expense of kindness and giving.
The story of Kurt Vonnegut and Joseph Heller occurred at my former bosses home. When Heller passed, Kurt Vonnegut wrote a gorgeous tribute poem titled “Enough”. Thank you for a beautiful lesson that we find happiness in wanting what we have.
Good to know that you even know the host. I’ve read Vonnegut’s poem and have read the story in John Bogle’s book Enough. Maybe someday you can tell me the name of the host. And thank you for your generous comments.
I am glad you found the article helpful. Not having anything is not a problem. Feeling that we have to have it is. People thrive even under extraordinary conditions. Nelson Mandela spent 27 years in prison under primitive conditions lacking everything you have now and yet came out mentally unscathed.
The Stoics believed that wealth and fame were worthless possessions not worth pursuing. The Stoic believed the ultimate possession was the best, most virtuous version of himself, forged through discipline and renunciation. To be "a good man."
The greatest thing I learned from stoicism is don't waste the rest of your time here worrying about other people– — unless it affects the common good. It will keep you from doing anything useful. Great piece Chuck.
Dismissing substance use disorders as opinion based wants ("This is how we become gluttons and alcoholics.") is at best a misunderstanding of the disease and at worst a regression to the "moral choice" position on addiction. Tainted an otherwise interesting article...
This was helpful to me today. Largely due to serious mental health issues in the past, mixed with solid introversion, I've never been in a romantic relationship (just turned 39). This lack often leads to feeling less than and like I'm missing out on what's typically a basic thing to happen in life. I try to remember that I have enough regardless and that many people in the world would love to have some of things I have. Yet I keep coming back to the fact that once I got my current job, that really helped improve my mood and self-confidence from what I had previously been doing. I wish I had handled that previous time better, but acknowledge it was difficult to do so. It leads me to think that having a good relationship would have a similar effect and makes being content without a romantic relationship difficult at times.
Thank you. The Stoic position is yes, it is true that you may feel better if you have a better relationship, more money , or something else. But they are NOT ESSENTIAL for your flourishing. Nelson Mandela came of a primitve prison after 27 years unscathed. Yet people who have everything feel miserable, driven by their quest for more.
Thank you for taking the time to reply. I feel better than I did yesterday and was helped this morning after reading John Kuna's article in the latest issue. I believe what you say is true and will continue to reflect on it. The only thing I would push back on is our collective tendency to think of well regarded figures, like Mandela, as having handled life better than they did. What he did was often something worth emulating, but "unscathed" would be superhuman or godlike. Sometimes I think we all have a tendency to overstate someone's accomplishments because we're desperate for a perfect role model. Regardless, I'm glad I've found this resource and hope to be able to give back in some way what I receive :-). Take care!
In Stoicism, wealth is a "preferred indifferent." It is neither good nor bad in itself. You can enjoy it if you have it. You can even acquire it if your purpose is good and you use it for good purposes. But meaningless acquisition leads to misery. (By the way, the quote is based on the writings of the richest person in the world at that time, Seneca.) There are many billionnaires who have enough money to last their life time and then some and still unhappy. There are famous people whio think they are not famous enough They continue to acquire without realizing their contrinued acquisition will not make them happy. It is like running in a race with no goal post. You can't win - your can only tire yourself or drop dead. You can decide whether you want to participate in that race. Stoicism is pointing out to the nature of mindless acquisition and its consequences.
The Stoic position has been that we have a choice in all what we think and do. You may be right in your observation that this is not always so. To that extent I stand corrected.
Looking at a different perspective, it is also true (I thnk) there are far more people who become alcoholics or gluttons failing to exercise their choice than by disease. I was trying to inspire the reader to exercise their choice facutly, not meaning to be taken literally. But the responsibiity to communicate precisely is mine and I will try to be more careful in the future. Thank you for pointingit out.
Thanks for writing this great article Chuck. “Being content makes a poor man rich. Being discontent makes a rich man poor.” Best to learn this at a young age and reap the long term rewards of this life-changing approach, but the “better late than never” slogan never applied more. Adopt this mentality and watch what happens to yourself and those around you. 😎 Awesome article, priceless magazine.
Good point. In Stoicism, wealth is an "indifferent". It is neither good not bad. If you have wealth, you are free to enjoy it. (Actually the post you refer to is based on Seneca's writing. Seneca was the wealthest private citizen of his time.) So if you have or if you acquire wealth for a good purpose, it is just fine.
But here is the thing. Say you decide to run a Marathon (26.22 miles). When you reach the end suddenty you find it is not the end, but you need to run an additional mile to complete it. You run another mile and then they tell you, you have to run another mile. It keeps happening over and over again. You have the choice of forever running until you drop dead, or not continuing with the race with no fixed end. Wanting more and more and never having enough is like running this race. You have to decide if it makes sense to you to participate in this race where the goal post is constatnrly changing or run a race with a fixed goal post.
It is not a call to change any systmem. It is about seeing how our mindless quest for acquiring things create our unhappiness. and it is a loser's game, It is about the choice we have - to continue on this treadmill or get off of it.
I don’t think Stoicism lacks compassion, although it’s not its central theme. If you believe in the centrality of compassion, you might want to explore Buddhism rather than Stoicism. Both traditions overlap a great deal, but Buddhism emphasizes compassion a lot more. I think it’s likely to be much more in line with your thinking and you are likely to get a lot more out of it.
From what I understand, one of the main topics of the post is to give some advice to have peace of mind and eliminate possible sources of anxiety. Of course, there may be people who have accumulated wealth and at the same time achieved happiness and satisfaction through altruism. But I'm afraid they don't represent the majority of mortals.
You are right. As I also implied in the artilce, it is not the money or possessions that cause the problem. It is the relentless pursuit of money or possessions, hoping that they will bring us happiness. (Marcus Aurelius and Seneca were the richest people of their times.)
This is so interesting. I've talked to a few people about how social media influencers, as the 21st century equivalent of the TV commercial celebrities of the 80s and 90s, are focussed on materialism, consumerism and appearance. There's much to be said for shunning those things and focussing on care, kindness and giving - the real human things that will be left behind in the hearts of people when we're gone
Quite so. The problem is money and possessions is not money and possessions. It is that quest for more never stops. This intense focus on acquisition often comes at the expense of kindness and giving.
The story of Kurt Vonnegut and Joseph Heller occurred at my former bosses home. When Heller passed, Kurt Vonnegut wrote a gorgeous tribute poem titled “Enough”. Thank you for a beautiful lesson that we find happiness in wanting what we have.
Good to know that you even know the host. I’ve read Vonnegut’s poem and have read the story in John Bogle’s book Enough. Maybe someday you can tell me the name of the host. And thank you for your generous comments.
I am glad you found the article helpful. Not having anything is not a problem. Feeling that we have to have it is. People thrive even under extraordinary conditions. Nelson Mandela spent 27 years in prison under primitive conditions lacking everything you have now and yet came out mentally unscathed.
Well put. Thanks.
The Stoics believed that wealth and fame were worthless possessions not worth pursuing. The Stoic believed the ultimate possession was the best, most virtuous version of himself, forged through discipline and renunciation. To be "a good man."
yes.
The greatest thing I learned from stoicism is don't waste the rest of your time here worrying about other people– — unless it affects the common good. It will keep you from doing anything useful. Great piece Chuck.
Dismissing substance use disorders as opinion based wants ("This is how we become gluttons and alcoholics.") is at best a misunderstanding of the disease and at worst a regression to the "moral choice" position on addiction. Tainted an otherwise interesting article...
This was helpful to me today. Largely due to serious mental health issues in the past, mixed with solid introversion, I've never been in a romantic relationship (just turned 39). This lack often leads to feeling less than and like I'm missing out on what's typically a basic thing to happen in life. I try to remember that I have enough regardless and that many people in the world would love to have some of things I have. Yet I keep coming back to the fact that once I got my current job, that really helped improve my mood and self-confidence from what I had previously been doing. I wish I had handled that previous time better, but acknowledge it was difficult to do so. It leads me to think that having a good relationship would have a similar effect and makes being content without a romantic relationship difficult at times.
Thank you. The Stoic position is yes, it is true that you may feel better if you have a better relationship, more money , or something else. But they are NOT ESSENTIAL for your flourishing. Nelson Mandela came of a primitve prison after 27 years unscathed. Yet people who have everything feel miserable, driven by their quest for more.
Thank you for taking the time to reply. I feel better than I did yesterday and was helped this morning after reading John Kuna's article in the latest issue. I believe what you say is true and will continue to reflect on it. The only thing I would push back on is our collective tendency to think of well regarded figures, like Mandela, as having handled life better than they did. What he did was often something worth emulating, but "unscathed" would be superhuman or godlike. Sometimes I think we all have a tendency to overstate someone's accomplishments because we're desperate for a perfect role model. Regardless, I'm glad I've found this resource and hope to be able to give back in some way what I receive :-). Take care!
Just subscribed to the stoic gym… and already as much as my brains can absorb.
In Stoicism, wealth is a "preferred indifferent." It is neither good nor bad in itself. You can enjoy it if you have it. You can even acquire it if your purpose is good and you use it for good purposes. But meaningless acquisition leads to misery. (By the way, the quote is based on the writings of the richest person in the world at that time, Seneca.) There are many billionnaires who have enough money to last their life time and then some and still unhappy. There are famous people whio think they are not famous enough They continue to acquire without realizing their contrinued acquisition will not make them happy. It is like running in a race with no goal post. You can't win - your can only tire yourself or drop dead. You can decide whether you want to participate in that race. Stoicism is pointing out to the nature of mindless acquisition and its consequences.
The Stoic position has been that we have a choice in all what we think and do. You may be right in your observation that this is not always so. To that extent I stand corrected.
Looking at a different perspective, it is also true (I thnk) there are far more people who become alcoholics or gluttons failing to exercise their choice than by disease. I was trying to inspire the reader to exercise their choice facutly, not meaning to be taken literally. But the responsibiity to communicate precisely is mine and I will try to be more careful in the future. Thank you for pointingit out.
Thanks for writing this great article Chuck. “Being content makes a poor man rich. Being discontent makes a rich man poor.” Best to learn this at a young age and reap the long term rewards of this life-changing approach, but the “better late than never” slogan never applied more. Adopt this mentality and watch what happens to yourself and those around you. 😎 Awesome article, priceless magazine.
Good point. In Stoicism, wealth is an "indifferent". It is neither good not bad. If you have wealth, you are free to enjoy it. (Actually the post you refer to is based on Seneca's writing. Seneca was the wealthest private citizen of his time.) So if you have or if you acquire wealth for a good purpose, it is just fine.
But here is the thing. Say you decide to run a Marathon (26.22 miles). When you reach the end suddenty you find it is not the end, but you need to run an additional mile to complete it. You run another mile and then they tell you, you have to run another mile. It keeps happening over and over again. You have the choice of forever running until you drop dead, or not continuing with the race with no fixed end. Wanting more and more and never having enough is like running this race. You have to decide if it makes sense to you to participate in this race where the goal post is constatnrly changing or run a race with a fixed goal post.
It is not a call to change any systmem. It is about seeing how our mindless quest for acquiring things create our unhappiness. and it is a loser's game, It is about the choice we have - to continue on this treadmill or get off of it.
I don’t think Stoicism lacks compassion, although it’s not its central theme. If you believe in the centrality of compassion, you might want to explore Buddhism rather than Stoicism. Both traditions overlap a great deal, but Buddhism emphasizes compassion a lot more. I think it’s likely to be much more in line with your thinking and you are likely to get a lot more out of it.
Great. Maybe that's your path. I don't think you should worry too much about Stoicism, if you have already found a path that works for you and if
you don't agree with Stoic philosophy as you understand it. Paths are unimportant. Your goals are. All the best.
So be it.
From what I understand, one of the main topics of the post is to give some advice to have peace of mind and eliminate possible sources of anxiety. Of course, there may be people who have accumulated wealth and at the same time achieved happiness and satisfaction through altruism. But I'm afraid they don't represent the majority of mortals.
You are right. As I also implied in the artilce, it is not the money or possessions that cause the problem. It is the relentless pursuit of money or possessions, hoping that they will bring us happiness. (Marcus Aurelius and Seneca were the richest people of their times.)