> [Stoicism has] always been less of a philosophy and more of a ruling class handbook on how to conduct oneself.

Sounds like a pretty disingenuous take. Epictetus was a slave and a Stoic.

> "Our imaginary fears harm us more than reality ever does.". I think that depends pretty heavily on your reality.

Yes, but it's true for the vast majority of humanity, and so arguably considerable suffering is imaginary is it not?

> Detachment from reality or fear is a pseudo-cure that just attempts to skip over true existential problems.

Stoicism is not about detachment. A better reductive one-word summary: Stoicism is about perspective.

>Sounds like a pretty disingenuous take. Epictetus was a slave and a Stoic.

Which is neither here, nor there. "Stoic" philosophy, as understood and practiced by ruling class/execs/etc has almost nothing to do with Epictetus, and is the product of a culture millenia away from the ancient mindset.

Similar to what western "Buddhism" or "zen practices" (used to be more productive, combined with modern life as a lifestyle accessory) is to traditional Buddhism.

>Yes, but it's true for the vast majority of humanity, and so arguably considerable suffering is imaginary is it not?

Citation needed.

For neurotic people their "imaginary fears" might be harming them more than actual problems. But not for the "vast majority of humanity".

War, hunger, poverty, health issues, precarious jobs, bad jobs, persecution, bullying, bad relationships, loneliness, old age, betrayals, and so on, are actual things that harm people in actual reality, more than any "imaginary fears" they have.

> "Stoic" philosophy, as understood and practiced by ruling class/execs/etc has almost nothing to do with Epictetus, and is the product of a culture millenia away from the ancient mindset.

Since you started it, I'll ask for a citation on this too. I'm sure you have a subjective sense in which this seems true, but I'm not personally convinced that humanity and human problems have changed all that much, nor that stoicism as currently understood is all that different than Epictetus's conception.

> For neurotic people their "imaginary fears" might be harming them more than actual problems. But not for the "vast majority of humanity".

Extreme poverty is now very rare (1 in 7 people) [1]. Death from violent conflict is also rare (most pessimistic estimate is 2 per 100,000) [2]. Obviously this is not the complete picture of all bad things, but I think it's basically the case that constant physical suffering is a pretty uncommon for most people these days, where mental suffering is common to most people.

Furthermore, fear, anxiety and unnecessary mental suffering are not the domain of purely neurotic people. Neurotic people simply become non-functional in various ways because of it, and that's why it's considered a disorder. Just because you're functional does not mean you're not suffering mentally (and possibly unnecessarily).

> War, hunger, poverty, health issues, precarious jobs, bad jobs, persecution, bullying, bad relationships, loneliness, old age, betrayals, and so on, are actual things that harm people in actual reality,

Absolutely. But I don't think it's at all obvious that the magnitude of harm actually outstrips the constant anxiety and fear of imagining yourself possibly experiencing that harm.

Take bullying, something with which many people on HN probably have some experience. The actual experience of bullying is terrible when it happens. Each instance is what, perhaps 5-10 minutes of suffering? Now consider how much suffering you experienced outside of that, the fear and paranoia that you might run into your bully around every corner, the constant review of the humiliating experience every night, the dread of the walk to school or between classes, to defense mechanisms you build up to that can reduce your ability to connect with others in adult life.

So what is really harming the bullied more overall, the actual bullying, or the mental suffering surrounding the bullying? Yes, the mental suffering was triggered by the bullying, but that doesn't mean it has to dominate your life, so I don't think the answer is as clear as you imply, and I think the same argument applies to most of the other items on your list, eg. the physical suffering is often temporary, but the mental suffering is considerably longer lasting and thus probably more impactful. Stoicism can arguably grant you a perspective shift that reduces or eliminates a lot of that mental suffering.

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty

[2] https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace

>Since you started it, I'll ask for a citation on this too. I'm sure you have a subjective sense in which this seems true, but I'm not personally convinced that humanity and human problems have changed all that much, nor that stoicism as currently understood is all that different than Epictetus's conception.

Human problems haven't changed all that much (in some sense).

But the application of Epictetus philosophy has changed greatly, from sincere following for centuries in times when it was a survival tool, to a lifestyle accessory in times when it's a fad (of which several others have come and go in the 30 years I've followed the space, and more will) - from people who have no modesty or charity (philanthropia), but like to "play the stoic" as one in the 70s would play the world savvy playboy type or in previous decades the rugged boostrapped guy, and so on.

>Extreme poverty is now very rare (1 in 7 people)

That's a feel-good statistic, about third world people being able to get a few dollars whereas they had even less before.

You can be several steps away from "extreme poverty" in the Hans Rosling/Steven Pinken sense to have serious money issues (and not because of some personal irresponsibility of lack of trying).

Billion nominally out of this "extreme poverty" are struggling very hard and very real, with exhausting jobs, eviction, feeding and educating their kids, paying the rent every month, covering health payments, and so on. Everywhere, including the first world, job precariousness, shitty jobs, money anxiety, debt and so on is very common (most people). To the point that e.g. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/19/56percent-of-americans-cant-...

>Yes, but it's true for the vast majority of humanity, and so arguably considerable suffering is imaginary is it not?

I see you haven't spent any considerable amount of time in third world countries.

Despite Nietzsche himself citing old stoics in nearly every publication he made. He even adapted the old "Armor Fati" as his personal credo. You or the guy who made the comic should read at least "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" instead of quoting him badly. How do you live a dangerous life in constant fear?

"Meaning and morality of One's life come from within oneself. Healthy, strong individuals seek self expansion by experimenting and by living dangerously. Life consists of an infinite number of possibilities and the healthy person explores as many of them as posible. Religions that teach pity, self-contempt, humility, self-restraint and guilt are incorrect. The good life is ever changing, challenging, devoid of regret, intense, creative and risky." -Nietzsche

What makes you think the comic creator or I haven't read Zarathustra? Yes, Nietzsche when criticizing the Stoics also engages with a lot of Stoic concepts, that's a trivial and often remarked on point.

When Nietzsche talks about Amor Fati he is making an even stronger point. People should not just assert control over their own lives and risk things, they should do so even if they know that they are doomed. Love for one's fate and love for life is supposed to be so strong that even imagining the worst outcome repeating forever ('Eternal Return' in Zarathustra), one still ought to say 'yes' and embrace fear, suffering, what have you.

And that is where he parts from the Stoics. Where the Stoics, in the face of fear advocate retreat, or moderation, or some kind of contemplation and withdrawal he makes the case that is it precisely the fear that makes asserting one's will worthwhile.

I still can't wrap my head around how you can say that all stoics advocate retreat especially Marcus Aurelius says that you need to asses if the fear you have is rational or irrational and if it's rational you have to act. The monster under your bed will not eat your feet when they tangle over the edge not one stoic would say curl up in a ball and ignore it. Except Seneca who would say "What are the chances?" they would all say look if there is a monster and if there is not ignore it.

There is necessary nuance to discuss between stimuli, thoughts, feelings, and unconscious reactions. And I reject wishing or intellectualizing away the realities of the human condition with an idealistic belief system. You can't necessarily control what you feel or how your body reacts if you almost get run-over by a car. Aspiring to become a Vulcan "Spock" seems an unhealthy goal, much as conforming to toxic positivity or toxic negativity. It's like: Why do people go to therapy? Often to unload their baggage to someone else, not to stuff more of it away and pretend it's not there. There's no "free lunch."

That said, I think there is value in repeatedly stressing people near or past their breaking points, relieving burnout potential, and gradually increasing challenges to moderate an individual's stress response and build their confidence ("break them down and build them up"). Furthermore, the Marines train their leaders make to decisions with incomplete information under pressure. Stressful experiences help make future experiences seem less daunting.

> It's always been less of a philosophy and more of a ruling class handbook on how to conduct oneself.

Why is that not valid still? No model or strategy works for everyone. A philosophy aimed at people at the top still has value unless you prove otherwise. It being in a niche does not disqualify it automatically.

The ridiculous part in the articles you describe is the targeting, not the ideas. It's the age old fallacy - train as Arnold did for the Olympia and you are going to get as big as him, when in fact he got big first, then adopted the training style and if you would copy that you would only get injured. In the same way a philosophy for top leaders could be very bad for the bottom socioeconomic class.

The criticism is very much addressing ideas. Nietzsche's criticism of stoicism as a life-denying philosophy is also a criticism of what he perceived to be a particular leadership culture in a, in his perspective, declining Europe.

Passiveness, denying emotions and lived experience and with that also beauty and heroism and embracing risk and instead opting for rationalizing and theorizing and detachment is, he argues, bad not just for ordinary people but for the entire culture.

And I think that's very relevant today when it comes to leaders. We don't really have leaders as such but rather science, public intellectuals, bureaucrats, processes and so forth. When was the last time there was a modern leadership that had a sense for beauty or aesthetics?

That was a little bait and switch (antiquity vs late modern periods) as again, I think any model of thought is to be taken in context. But I understand what you are saying and personally I also think we have fallen victim to extreme rationalism.

i know he wouldn't have liked it, but its helpful to have neizchtes words paraphrased simpler sometimes.

It seems like you might be on the odd-parity cycle: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/22/right-is-the-new-left/

Granted, parity in this sense doesn't track "reality", but it might be worth deconstructing your dismissal a bit. There are people that have to deal with irrational fear. Recognizing that you have direct control over that experience can be liberating and life-affirming, to use your language.

Personally, where I find the juicy bits are in the questions:

- How do you discern reasonable vs. unreasonable fear?

- What external factors are controllable and which are not?

- The feedback between external and internal factors is probably a mess of non-linearities. Where are the attractors? What does the landscape look like? How can you find the really nice/cool/fun/interesting attractors?

Etc. Of course, the above can be generalized beyond fear (via some appropriate natural transformation---hi Haskellers).