"But contemporary iterations of Stoicism... may win the prize for reducing complex ideas to shallow, if marketable, sound bites.... At its best, Stoicism challenges us to tame our selfish passions and trains us to accept injustice, failure and death. Contemporary pop-Stoicism, however, treats this idea of self-control as... a useful 'life hack': individualistic, capitalist-friendly self-help... For [writers such as Jordan Peterson], Stoicism can often be boiled down to therapeutic platitudes: work hard, push through pain, reframe toxic narratives. But pop-Stoicism doesn’t ask one of philosophy’s most important questions: What does it mean to live a good life?... [G]oodness, unlike productivity, is something we can’t 'hack' our way toward achieving."
Writes Tara Isabella Burton under the heading "Stoicism" in a collection of short essays, "Spring Cleaning 2022," at WaPo. She's the writer of novels and also the nonfiction works "Strange Rites: New Religions for a Godless World" and "Self-Made: Curating Our Image From da Vinci to the Kardashians."
The "Spring Cleaning" title refers to the prompt given to the various writers — "what all of us should toss."
I don't think Burton has established a reason to throw out Stoicism. Ironically, she wants people not to use this philosophy in a shallow way, but her rejection of today's efforts at Stoicism seems shallow too. She's certainly capsulized Jordan Peterson in an aggressively pat way.
Posts
65 comments:
She's certainly capsulized Jordan Peterson in an aggressively pat way.
Anti-Irish.
But contemporary iterations of Stoicism... may win the prize for reducing complex ideas to shallow, if marketable, sound bites
that's NOTHING! look what they've done with Atheism
Everything is shallow now. Nobody reads and nobody learns history or economics.
As a man Jordan Peterson has lived up to his ideals, including realizing he often hasn't.
But I was really interested in the whole list of "things to toss." It was as if kitchen world and digital world had ceased to charm, relax and amuse; and allegedly "deeper" stuff was suddenly seen as Pop babble, leaving - what? And why now? Is this a Ukraine effect? Call of Duty seems a little childish when 18-year-olds in Ukraine are taking on Russia? (Russia's outlook on war - Call of Booty.)
Or did Covid interrupt and break certain widespread trends which were past their sell-by anyhow? I feel that way when I listen to the Dems - not only wrong, but stale. They're running a Miss Havisham campaign. They promise great things for the marginalized - "Great Expectations 2022" could be their slogan - but the only thing they deliver is to lockdown on grievances forever and to drag the new generation down into lockdown them. The Dems have even got a semi-demented character right on center stage - Joe Biden roaming the halls and rooms of the White House, mumbling and whispering amid former greatness.
Had enough? Satis?
What does it mean to live a good life?
I think the author might discover that those platitudes are great for achieving a good life.
When you step away from a victim mentality and realize you may not be able to control what happens to you you usually CAN control what you do about it, when your achievement is focused on making things better for individuals in your life (as opposed to trying to change the world by trying to berate them into adopting your "fix" for the the world's ills, you will find fulfillment. You will discover that your enjoyment is increased when you give others joy, and your enjoyment is ephemeral when you try and please yourself. So, when pain or disappointment comes to you, tough it out, don't whine about it. Buck up and do something about it, don't blame others. Make that lemonade. Sure, negative things might have happened to you, but there was never any chance of gaining joy by dwelling on it, only in putting it aside and moving forward. Worry is borrowing tomorrow's troubles today, and resentment is paying yesterday's debts. No one every had a rich life living like that.
Enough platitudes for one day. Off to try and make someone's life a little better....
"[G]oodness, unlike productivity, is something we can’t 'hack' our way toward achieving."
Cuz an argument against platitudes works so much better when you stuff it with platitudes.
[G]oodness, unlike productivity, is something we can’t 'hack' our way toward achieving."
Don’t fake it until you make it?
If she has something better, I look forward to her YouTube channel… can’t wait to see it.
“Aggressively pat” is diplomatic lawyer-speak for “dishonest.”
Good gravy, "individualistic"--really? O the horror--the horror!
I have a friend who has a terminal illness. I guess in a sense we all do, but his is a known known, yet slow moving. Still, it takes away parts of his life a bit at a time. He's become a very serious reader of the Stoic philosophers and it has helped him view his today and his tomorrow. He's encouraged me to dive into them and I have not yet (though Epictetus stares at me from the bookcase). As Michael K states above, everything is shallow now. We all have access to the original thoughts, words, ideas of so much. But in many cases we default to the newer versions which are written for today's readers: shorter in length, and highlighting only a few key points lifted from a great thinker often (but not always) pulled out of context.
What this writer has done sounds so much like the pop culture take on 'deep thought' that fills up our bookstores and Amazon every month. Not only do we crank out 'how to' books, but books on why those 'how to' books aren't helpful, or are- depending on who you're trying to appeal to.
I guess my point is that in order to avoid the pop-culturing of a great treatise, or even a non-great essay, one should probably read the original work (if you have the time or inclination to do so). In this case, it'd be best to read the Stoics, then some Jordan Peterson rather than her take on Jordan Peterson. I wonder if she's done so.
Peterson is more anti-unethical than stoic. Attacking him is a way to get attention and avoid presenting an argument that is good enough to stand on its own.
I rank this Tara person right up their with Marcus Aurelius.
I say toss Tara.
"Attacking him is a way to get attention and avoid presenting an argument that is good enough to stand on its own."
Exactly. It's blatant virtue signalling.
Worse, apparently the author does not know how to search YouTube for Professor Peterson's views on a stoic perspective on life, success, and dealing with "evil." Sad. I don't agree with much of the Professor's approach; but, he comes as close to a proper stoic for our age.
As for his thoughts on living The Good Life, here are two examples of his refrain:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2U1-aSKmck
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYT-dD1vN_A
I don't think Burton has established are reason to throw out Stoicism. Ironically, she wants people not to use this philosophy in a shallow way, but her rejection of today's efforts at Stoicism seems shallow too. She's certainly capsulized Jordan Peterson in an aggressively pat way.
Women are generally driven biologically to find safe comfortable environments for themselves and their offspring in order to procreate. This is different from how men are driven biologically to seek out and overcome struggle and difficulty to provide safety and support to procreate.
The female point of view is antithetical to the precepts of stoicism which is to accept life as it is and to derive meaning and virtue from overcoming the struggle and adversity of life. This struggle maps much more to the biological imperatives males face.
The problem isn't that this stupid woman does not understand what Jordan Peterson is saying or how stoicism helps men.
The problem is that this stupid woman hates men and the fact that a healthy society respects men and women who go out and strive and build and take on risk. It is because it is mostly men that do this that drives these arrogant coddled over educated under accomplished women to vent against the people that provide them their coddled over indulged lives.
This woman needs to live in Afghanistan for a year.
Maybe then she will learn some respect for other people.
The cynics are forever making the perfect the enemy of the good. It justifies their parasitism.
Of course the WAPO exists to make coddled whiny old unaccomplished women feel better about themselves. I guess this woman has written a few short stories. Kinda like getting an education PhD Amrite?
I had hope when Ann started making forays into substack to branch out intellectually.
But one tends to be uncomfortable outside the comfy confines of the NYT/WAPO.
This woman is intellectual trash.
Since modern neuroscience has proven that free will is a minor player that requires a shit tonne of psychic energy for very little permanent benefits. Hacks are a short circuit of free will that funnels people into improvement behaviors.
Peterson has become a click bait whore to boost the self esteem of the non stoical whining crying complaining conspiracy mongering white trash deplorables.
On a tangent - I've always thought the similarity of stoicism and Buddhism suggests cultural influence from the east to the west (via trade routes?) back in the dim reaches of time, and that the Greeks weren't starting from nothing. Recently introduced a Tibetan lama friend to stoicism, and he was bowled over by the similarities, saying some of the quotes could easily have come from the great Tibetan teachers.
Still, pretty ballsy for the Washington Post to run an essay critical of easy answers to difficult questions. That is, after all, their bread and butter.
What does it mean to live a good life?
To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.
"Aggressively pat" is like a sign-off on a letter:
Dear Tara,
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblablahblahblahblablahblahblahblablahblahblahblablahblahblahblablahblahblahblablahblahblahblablahblahblahblablahblahblahblablahblahblahblablahblahblahblablahblahblahblablahblahblahbla.
Aggressively,
Pat
Burton thinks she's noticing something new. More fool she. Modern culture (the "American" part just reflects her bias and shallowness) is inherently one of dumbing down. Only the quick and dirty has a chance of penetrating the distracted brains of the masses. The best that has been thought and written has to be reduced to bullet points.
The only truly educated people in modern America are the self-educated. Sure, you may have been to the best schools and taken the hardest courses with the greatest teachers, but that stuff only helped you educate yourself.
For my part, I very much wanted to learn about the topics I was interested in, and still do. But I guide myself now (with assists from you people, sometimes).
The excerpt doesn't make my want to know any more about her and her ideas, or any less about JP and his.
"A Man in Full" by Tom Wolfe. It's been years since I read it, but I remember enjoying it. The main character is a modern follower of Stoicism. The framing of the novel was very interesting.
I looked her up. A lady theologian.
Nuff said.
Cute, for the type.
How do writer get causation backwards? does Culture transform anything?
or do "influcencers=writers etc.' transform Culture!
She's probably all on board for "mindfulness."
Peterson has become this generations Rorschach test: Everyone projects their own ambitions on him, and he reveals their blind spots. This was obvious in his various 2017-2018 media interviews. Many tried and many were humiliated upon attacking him.
This is all for a dude who's just saying what every random mid-20th-century moralizer or preacher said! What's old becomes new, and the many protests prove that Peterson will have a profound impact on the next generation.
Watch this guy's curiosity turn into deep affection for Peterson. This guy normally reacts to pop music he's never heard before, but became a Peterson junkie.
First video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRjOqttSuw0
"Perfectly explains my life" video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6AbaazT3K0
You think a novelist no one has ever heard of writing in WaPo is shallow? OK.
Tara, you ignorant slut. She clearly has not experienced Jordan Peterson. But she expects her readers to be as ignorant as she is.
“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”
― Marcus Aurelius
“The happiness of your life depends upon the quality of your thoughts.”
― Marcus Aurelius
Aggressively,
Pat
Twilight faith. Ethical religion. Liberal ideology. Negotiable from conception to grave. Been there, done that, again, and again, and again, in progress. Mortal gods and goddesses du jour.
Ho-ward: "Since modern neuroscience has proven that free will is a minor player that requires a shit tonne of psychic energy for very little permanent benefits."
No citations. I guess the mere assertion that "modern neuroscience" has proven X is all the proof one needs. Is it the "modern"? The "science"? The "neuro-" (that has euro in it!)? But those who cite Aurelius, Plato, Aristotle or (worst of all) Ecclesiastes or the Sutras are the benighted deplorables. Right.
Howard: "whining crying complaining conspiracy mongering white trash deplorables"
Well then. I don't know about you, but I'm convinced.
"But pop-Stoicism doesn’t ask one of philosophy’s most important questions: What does it mean to live a good life?"
You would think that among the many "iterations" of "pop-Stoicism" that disappoint her so thoroughly that one of those idiots would have at least accidentally stumbled upon the question.
First result on a search for "'Jordan Peterson 'good life'" is below:
Jordan Peterson - The Checklist For A Good Life
Also, I read a few pages from one of her non-fiction books and notice that she is a prolific adjective stacker.
I reject her and all her works.
Rather than the "Strange Rites" book of the post, I recommend Harlan Ellison's "Oblations on Alien Altars."
That said, I think Peterson might have to repeat his famous interview line, " No, that's not what I'm saying."
The Sutras? Like Kama Sutra?
I'm going to see if Youtoob has some helpful vids.
What does it mean to live a good life?
You're not going to find the answer in a newspaper or mass media that dumbs down nearly every philosophical and spiritual tradition into an anodyne pop-culture analogue for their purported readers to understand.
I listened to half of Peterson's 12 Rules but then gave up. His writing is so circuitous. I kept wanting him to get to the point. I never thought of him as a Stoic, though. He's pretty eclectic. There is a whole cottage industry on contemporary Stoicism. I found that they do discuss what makes for a good life. And they point readers back to the classics.
I wonder if she knows that Jordan Peterson is a Canadian, not an American, modern or otherwise.
No contemporary writer or philosopher who wishes popular acceptance is going to emphasize that each individual is personally and solely responsible for the decisions & pathways of his own life.
Epictetus predates the "Serenity Prayer" by encouraging his pupils & readers to take notice of what happenings are, and what are not, within their control, and to focus one's attentions on only those events over which they have some influence.
That probably does not sit very well with the prevalent contemporary thinking that there is always some outside, third-party, intentionally oppressive power making your life "bad." ...that only your blessings, and none of your debacles, are the result of your personal life choices.
With respect to "what is a good life"? It is a life of contentment with who you are, what you have, a life free of envy. A life that finds joy in a blooming flower, a fine sunset, and a quiet contemplation of simply being alive.
Since modern neuroscience has proven that free will is a minor player that requires a shit tonne of psychic energy for very little permanent benefits.
Talk about superficial understanding! Some researchers may have suggested that possibility in discussing their findings, but they know it cannot be proven nor can it be strongly inferred from neuroscience research.
I am surprised that the author did not equate Stoicism with Whiteness since they are both philosophical evils that are holding up the coming revolution.
I think we should all stand pat. And if you can't stand pat.
Well, don't talk to her.
Peterson has become a click bait whore to boost the self esteem of the non stoical whining crying complaining conspiracy mongering white trash deplorables.
I guess you don't like him. Most of the crying and low self esteem I see is on the left but you wouldn't know about that. Several years ago, I sent a copy of his book to my Bernie bro daughter. I wondered if she would read it She loved it. Not all lefties are as shallow as you are.
I think the prize goes to prosperity gospel.
"What does it mean to live a good life?"
That's a very good question.
Stoicism will not help you answer that question.
Stoicism tells you how to approach life. It doesn't tell you the meaning of life.
And without deciding that meaning, you can't possibly know whether what you're doing is "good" or not
Howard said...
Since modern neuroscience has proven that free will is a minor player that requires a shit tonne of psychic energy for very little permanent benefits.
Wow, that's a rather "special" approach.
Modern physics has proven that "determinism" is entirely impossible. So you're left with either free will, or nihilism.
I guess it's not a shock that Hoard goes of the nihilism side
“I reject her and all her works.“
I do(, too.)
“Peterson has become a click bait whore to boost the self esteem of the non stoical whining crying complaining conspiracy mongering white trash deplorables.“
… and the world turns…
Ooops.
Just re-read your comment, bentoak.
Well, you gave it a good go, at least.
Lyle Sanford, RMT said...
On a tangent - I've always thought the similarity of stoicism and Buddhism suggests cultural influence from the east to the west (via trade routes?) back in the dim reaches of time
Why East to West?
You might recall that Alexander took Greek culture with him West to East, and made it as far as India. AS Stoicism had been established before he did so, I expect that, at a minimum, there was a lot of cross fertilization
Howard said...
Since modern neuroscience has proven that free will is a minor player that requires a shit tonne of psychic energy for very little permanent benefits. Hacks are a short circuit of free will that funnels people into improvement behaviors.
Peterson has become a click bait whore to boost the self esteem of the non stoical whining crying complaining conspiracy mongering white trash deplorables.
Howard is a gullible idiot who looks up after buying a half a dozen conspiracy theories that have long since fallen apart sold to him buy his masters.
He sees Jordan Peterson. Cannot deal with Peterson on an intellectual level and is befuddled and confused. Howard obviously does not know how to read the "modern neuroscience" or the studies underlying his absolutely farcical and laughable take.
So he posts words that are mismatched and when his statement is broken down it just looks stupid.
So like a good dumb f**k Howard lashes out at the people he cannot discuss things with because of his intellectual limitations.
You are not that smart Howard. You are dumber than Joe Biden. You are right there with Kamala Harris. You need to stick with words that match your level of intelligence.
Don't try to talk about neuroscience. You just look dumb.
It's a vicious circle. All criticism of shallow pop culture is likely to be shallow pop culture itself. Someone very old or extremely learned might be able to get away with posing as a representative of high culture, but most of us can't.
https://youtu.be/MnUfXYGtT5Q
Riffing philosopher.
G*d love him.
I knew I had seen the lady theologian before, and sure enough she was on CSPAN with Ross Douthit a while back. (Thanks, Intertoobs.)
I skipped out on them early; it was like a Joe Rogan interview with higher-toned jargon.
And I don't care what The Neuroscience Guy says, we have no choice but to believe in free will.
You people are basically afraid of the Dark.
We true Stoics are well used to barbs from the likes of Tara Isabella Burton.
Smug and wrong.
Can I point out the irony she's clearly not aware of? She titles her post "Spring Cleaning" and in that post she states that you should toss the guy who says you should clean your room. As someone commented, she's glib and smug and she's also not self aware. Typical old media dweller.
Temujin- my <3&prayers to your friend- this person is a positive, moral ray of Light.
I heard a story this morning, please bear w/me as I try to pack the gist of it in a nutshell?
My sister, after Mass this morning, visited w/a friend. She asked after the woman’s dying father: how was he &how was she coping w/her sorrow? This woman’s Dad had been in late stages of dementia, staying at a beautiful hospice- but, had to leave b/c there is a timeframe… and- I can’t tell it.
Nutshell: the wife(stepmom) who had all the help she could imagine to care for her husband- w/held food and water until he passed away. He could still eat, still swallow; but could not feed himself. Instead of bringing him home- Hospice, along w/this man’s wife- decided his living value was of such diminished worth, he wasn’t even worth the effort to feed and care for.
We tend to linger- and lingering costs $$$.
That’s our great Western “throw away” society for you. All the time spent caring for someone who can’t care for themselves when the return on that investment of time is death… can’t you hear them: “I wouldn’t want to put my family through that!” Through WHAT? Completing the circle of Life w/compassion and love?? W/honor and respect for a parent/spouse: both of which are commandments?
If the difficult phases of life are cut away- the value of suffering- not only in death, but in living- are not realized. The lessons of patience, persistence and eventual growth and perspective: so many necessary components that give life meaning- will never be realized.
And isn’t that just the kind of world young kids are growing up in.
“Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me" (Matthew 25:40, 45, NIV
Bentoak-i enjoy listening to Peterson more than reading his words. His book(s) are on tape now, it might be better for you? I especially like his tangential wandering lol. Maybe that’s what you mean by circular, I find that quite endearing about him.
ps: I amended my comment and chucked my previous one to try and tone down my personal “grrrr” towards someone I don’t know. And to take out identifying details.
Peterson claims in most every interview (and there is evidence to support his claim all over the internet) that after every speaking engagement, several to many people (usually men) come up and tell him they followed his advice and are now living better, happier lives. Peterson of course gets misty about his impact on the lives of these people who were stuck and have now done the work of getting themselves unstuck.
But for people like Burton, it's not that people are being helped, or are using their minds and helping themselves, it's that Peterson is not "doing Stoicism right." Does it matter that Peterson doesn't define "how to live a good life" when the people who read his books stop being jobless, stop using drugs or alcohol, stop waiting around for something to happen to them and start taking responsibility for their lives and becoming independent actors instead of dependent watchers? Does someone have to read the complete works of Zeno of Citium before taking the reins of their life?
Or are all those things part of living a good life, and Burton doesn't approve because Peterson won't use the right pronouns for someone with gender dysphoria?
When I went through my divorce, my psychologist had me read Albert Ellis’s, New Guide to Rational Living. It is based on Stoicism. Then I read Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Admiral Stockdale. I’d call myself Evangelical Stoic.
Howard is onto something in showing how he can compel responses from people who think they have free will, but are driven again and again by impulses out of their control to respond to his pointed trolling
Howard said...
You people are basically afraid of the Dark.
No, Howard, we are just aware that people like you are pulling in "the Dark" because that's what their nihilistic souls desperately desire, NOT because there's any solid justification for it
Post a Comment